Jump to content

Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Previous Discussion: Archive 1

On the table for paragraph 3

Tabled from Talk:Jesus/Archive 36:

  • Clarify what is referenced to the Creed, and what is referenced to John 3:16
  • Consider moving John 3:16 to another section of the article
  • Make sure the views attributed to the Creed reflect all major interpretations of the Creed
  • Clarify syntax
  • Contact User:JimWae because he raised all the above points
  • Contact User:Aiden and User:Storm Rider, whom the current compromise was meant to balance
  • motion to remove "also" from the sentence on Bible Prophecy

Oh, and when I updated the Christian Views subpages, I noticed that several of the recent archives overlapped (same content in more than one archive). Why? Arch O. La 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A LOT of time has been spent on acheiving an consensus for this paragraph, and while the Nicene Creed (which you proposed mentioning) does do a good job of summarizing important Christian beliefs, it does not cover every base. That said, the paragraph in its current form mentions that "most Christians affirm the Nicene Creed and believe..." and in this respect it keeps this important reference while allowing further explanation. I would oppose any changes to this paragraph, and frankly hope we don't have to repeat all of the above above nonsense again. —Aiden 19:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
We've been working top-down on the article, and some feel that it might be time to reconsider the phrasing of paragraph 3. I believe that all of the above can be accomplished with a little minor copyediting; see below. Also, Jim's other point was that the paragraph may not accurately reflect Catholic beliefs. Arch O. La 19:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Revisions

Archola's Revision of Dane Jude's proposal (with modifications)

Modern Trinitarian Christianity, based on the historic Nicene Creed, affirms that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity; that Jesus was born of a virgin; and that Jesus was crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where He resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism. A minority of Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy. Most Christians further affirm that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from the penalties of sin, based on John 3:16.Most Christians further affirm that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is the primary step to being saved from the penalties of sin, based on John 3:16.

Note: this revision has been tabled in favor of Aiden's version below.

Aiden's Revision (modified)

Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Most Christians also believe that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from the penalties of sin (see John 3:16). Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy.

Note: this revision has been tabled in favor of Aiden/Archola's Compromise (Revision 2) below.

Archola's revision of Aiden's revision

Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture (see nontrinitarianism). Most Christians also believe that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is the primary step to being saved from the penalties of sin (see John 3:16). Most Christians further believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy.

Note: this revision has been tabled in favor of Aiden/Archola's Compromise (Revision 2) below.

Aiden/Archola Compromise Revision 2

Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was [ born of a virgin,]-? crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy, [and that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is necessary to attain salvation (see John 3:16).]-?

Disputed clauses in brackets. This includes virgin birth, salvation, and John 3:16. Tabled in favor of revision 3.

Aiden/Archola Compromise Revision 3 (current version)

Most Christians are Trinitarian and thus affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy, and that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is necessary to attain salvation (see John 3:16).

Tabled in favor of revision 4.

Aiden/Archola/JimWae Version

Most Christians are Trinitarian and thus affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Christians generally believe that Jesus was crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of Scripture. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy, [and that the most direct path to salvation is through Jesus [(see John 3:16)--?].]--?

Disputed clauses in brackets. This includes salvation and John 3:16. Tabled in favor of revision 2.

Comments on proposed revisions

Comments to Archola's proposed revision

Any comments or concerns? Arch O. La 20:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems like every proposal will evolve one small step at a time. The concern I would have is the last sentence. This seems to skip over the "faith and works" position that many Christians possess. A counter would be something such as, "Most Christians further affirm that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour is the primary step to being saved from the penalties of sin, based on John 3:16." This edit still allows for those Christians who believe that faith without works is dead to be fully supportive of the paragraph. Those who feel baptism is required ordinance would also be supportive, I think. We Christians can be a touchy lot! Storm Rider 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Since the page has been unprotected, I took the bold step of adding the paragraph, including Storm Rider's minor revision. I also left a comment tag describing the current compromise. If there any objections, I think we can deal with them without having an edit war. Arch O. La
I would drop the "historic" as being POV. Jim62sch 21:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
1) The three historic creeds are the Anasthasian, Apostle's, and Nicene Creeds, so the term "historic" is correct 2) it provides a link to the previous paragraph, which is about historicity (and shows the historical root of the majority form of Christianity) 3) by using "historic," we are referring the original creed and get to avoid that whole mess about the filoque clause 4) see Aiden's remark following about why it is approproate to reference the Nicene Creed 5) The whole paragraph is meant to be POV—it describes the POV of Christianity. Arch O. La 22:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
When I see the word "historic" I think globally -- is it really historic in that context? For me, the answer would be no. Is it historic within the chronology of Christianity? Yes. But, do the 70% of the people who are not Christian see it as historic? I doubt it. For item 3, the word "original" would better serve the purpose of getting around the filioque clause. As for referencing the Creed (item 4), I have no problem with that at all -- it is one of the cornerstones of Christian dogma (original sense, not the negative sense). I hope this adequately explains my one, teeny, objection. Jim62sch 00:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
We're now working off Aiden's revisions (he wrote the original paragraph) so this may be a nonissue anyway. But, thanks for explaining. Arch O. La 00:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost we should summarize the beliefs of the majority of Christians, using concepts such as the Creed to reference those beliefs. Just outright saying "x Christianity believes y" does not relate to the reader that this belief is held by the majority of Christians, and seems too mechanical. Secondly, Arch's revision has extremely awkward structure. —Aiden 22:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed compromise: change one clause from "Other Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism." to "a minority of Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism." This will, of course, also show that the Trinitarians are in the majority without having to change the Trinitarian sentence.Arch O. La 22:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Archola's idea seems reasonable enough, but Jim I think had some issue with the John 3:16 part, we ought to discuss it. Homestarmy 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm waiting to hear from Jim, but I believe it's enough to separate John 3:16 from the summary of the Nicene Creed. Arch O. La 23:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
John 3:16 would be best separated from the Nicene Creed. Besides, there is significant linguistic dispute over the meaning of μονογενη (which is not touched upon in the section on John 3:16). Jim62sch 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm afraid "μονογενη" is Greek to me. Arch O. La 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the still extremely awkward structure, I still feel your version infers that all Trinitarians adhere to the Nicene Creed by mentioning modern Trinitarianism as based on the Nicene Creed, then contrasting it only with nontrinitarianism. I've addressed your concerns about relating the John 3:16 reference to the Creed in a revision... of my revision. —Aiden 23:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
See below. Arch O. La 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) PS: By awkward do you mean that I tried to cram the whole creed into one sentence? Because to me, that's starting to look awkward. Arch O. La 00:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments to Aiden's proposed revision

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

See updated version. —Aiden 23:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your update better. However, I still see three issues:

  1. JimWae's point The nontrinitarian sentence brackets the sentences explaining the creed, and should come immediately after.
  2. Storm Rider's point Accepting Jesus and being born again (the context of John 3) is the first step to being a Christian. It's neccesary, but is it sufficient? Many denominations hold that faith, works, and/or baptism are also needed. Storm Rider's revision covers this range.
  3. My point I'd still like to see a link to nontrinitaranism. There's more to nontrinitarianism than rejecting the Creed and the Trinity, which the nontrinitarianism article demonstrates. Also, moving the sentence as per JimWae means there are now two "Also" sentences in a row, which is redundant. So, I used "further" for the second sentence. Arch O. La 00:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Please see proposed compromise. I've organized the sentence as per your recommendations but avoided the debate over how salvation is attained by simply stating acceptance of Jesus as Savior is neccessary to achieve it. —Aiden 01:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Done. Now let's see how it holds up. That is how the process should work! Good job. —Aiden 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that was ridiculously easy ;) Arch O. La 02:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments to Aiden/Archola Compromise Revision 2

Please place any further comments, concerns or suggestions about paragraph 3 here. Arch O. La 02:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It cannot be said with any certainty that the majority of Xians believe acceptance of Jesus is a necessary condition of salvation. Catholics make up roughly half of all Xians & they do NOT teach this - at most, they teach "the most direct path to salvation is through Jesus" --JimWae 05:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • While the virgin birth is part of the Nicene Creed, surveys (someone could look for some I guess) show considerably less Xians believe it than other parts of the creed. The purpose of the intro is to present what is overwhelmingly agreed upon - and not to have doctrines less widely agreed upon ride upon the coattails of those that are. The article is not about Xian beliefs, it is a biography of Jesus & should not wander into issues about which there is less consensus among Xians -- particularly not in the intro and particularly not when it does not give space to acknowledge the variations --JimWae 06:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
    • A 2005 survey of Church of England members and clergy found a phenomenon that has been often observed in other denominations on both sides of the big pond: the clergy is more liberal than the congregations.
      • 97% of both clergy and laity believe in God.
      • 80% of both clergy and laity believe in the resurrection of Jesus
      • 62% of the laity and 60% of the clergy believe in the virgin birth of Jesus.
      • 65% of the laity and 61% of the clergy believe that Jesus converted water into wine.
    • The data was contained in a 180-page report, titled "Fragmented Faith?. It states that "In many ways ordained Anglicans look out on to a somewhat different world from the world viewed by lay Anglicans. Overall, it is the faultline between the clergy and the committed laity on the issue of homosexuality which may take the Church of England most by surprise." Ruth Glendhill, "Clergy who don't believe in God," Times Online, 2005-JUL-04, at: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1679824,00.html http://www.inthefaith.com/2003/12/18/many-americans-still-wonder-about-nature-of-jesus/ http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm --JimWae 06:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

So the issues are:

  1. Salvation. Storm Rider's suggested phrase was "primary step." JimWae mentions "Most direct path." Overall, how best do we summarize salvation in terms of John 3:16?
  2. Virgin Birth. Should this be included in the intro? Arch O. La | TCF member 07:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments to Aiden/Archola Compromise Revision 3

This proposal can be found here.

As I said above, I feel this version bypasses the need for debate on "other paths" to salvation. By simply stating that acceptance of Jesus as Savoir is a way to save one from the penalties of sin, we allow for the existence of "other paths" and we do not make it a requirement for salvation of this belief. We simply explain that it is the most commonly held belief concerning salvation. —Aiden 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But that's just it, we don't have any statistics here showing that acknowladgement of alternate pathways are a clear majority. We could just ignore trying to summarize it at all and try to dump responsibility on the John 3 article, which could use some expansion to cover whatever debate is going on, but it would avoid us having to argue over this. Homestarmy 00:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But that's just my point. If we don't have any statistics on who believes in "other paths," why not simply avoid mentioning "other paths" as well as mentioning acceptance of Jesus as the only path. We could simply state that acceptance of Jesus as Savoir saves one from the penalties of sin. This could mean to some that it is the only path, while to others it may be one path in a wide assortment of paths. —Aiden 01:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Acceptance seems a bit obscure of a term, because then I could simply acknowladge what Jesus did and be saved, I don't know a single Christian group or denomination that believes something abstract like that :/. would putting "Belief in" there be subject to more objections? Homestarmy 01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There's also the whole issue about the divine parthenogenesis...which might require deeper discussion later in the article. Also, CTSWyneken and I have talked and we're a little uncomfortable with the "accept Jesus" phrase. To a Lutheran, faith and salvation are acts of divine will; we only "accept" afterwards. "Accept Jesus" places too much emphasis on human will. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Can we agree that the current proposal is better than the existing text and get on with things soon? It looks like I first raised these points Feb 5 or even earlier --JimWae 01:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It's better than the existing text, but I know CTSWyneken will have some things to say about "accept Jesus" when he's done working on the first two paragraphs. However, he's Missouri Synod and I lean towards the ELCA, so it doesn't bother me quite as much. But I can see where he's coming from. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we can, I dunno exactly what that huge word Archola used means, but it looks to me like each of us almost has our own take on this :/. Once again, how about "Belief in" rather than "acceptance"? That seems fair to me and ought to be downright accurate. Homestarmy 02:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean "parthenogenesis"? It's a biological term, based on Greek, that literally means "virgin birth." Also, "belief in" works for me...but apparently not for JimWae. Also, it seems we're debating faith, works and baptism again. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, we could debate whether it means "virgin", as that was not the standard meaning of parthenos -- it was more used to mean maiden, young girl (like the hebrew "alma" which it is used to translate), with no consideration for virginity or lack thereof. In fact, the hebrew word for virgin is "betulah". Jim62sch 00:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • intro should not pretend to resolve issues about which there is wide contention among Xians - conditions for salvation should not be mentioned in intro - they are not even ever mentioned in article --JimWae 02:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was the one who proclaimed those views on how to be saved in the first place, I think that's worth some mention in the intro, considering the importance of what He was saying. And I see no reason to believe that most Christians do not think that belief in Jesus saves one from sin. Homestarmy 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Aiden and Archola have presented an alternate sentence, which to me should work just fine if "acceptance" is changed to "belief in", because that would make it far more accurate and way less open-ended (I.E. what does it mean to "Accept" in this case), and after that, well, it looks fairly good to me. Homestarmy 02:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Homes, try Matthew 7:21 for starters. '"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Some take this as placing works above faith. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: I still prefer "Jesus provides salvation." Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Including "belief in Jesus saves one from sin" or whatever in intro is just at attempt at fudging the logic - letting readers interpret it as they please, as either sufficient or necessary or both - but not likely neither. If it cannot be said clearly it does not belong. AND since it is NEVER discussed in article, it does not belong. "Jesus provides salvation" IS acceptable ---JimWae 02:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Which was the main message of Jesus?

Jim, based on what you said above: "You must believe I am God to be saved," why then did you also reject our compromise phrase, acceptance of Jesus as Savoir is necessary to attain salvation."? —Aiden 02:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Please do notice the "which"

But "Jesus provides salvation" is ambiguous at best. Does that mean everyone is provided with salvation, whether they accept Jesus as Lord or not? Does it mean salvation is provided in return for faith or for works? Sure salvation may be provided, but is it attainable? Simply stating that acceptance of "Jesus as Savoir saves one from the penalties of sin" accommodates both the works view and faith alone view. Those who believe that faith and works are necessary would definitely agree that salvation would not be possible without acceptance of Jesus. That said, most Christians--I would assume--consider grace a gift, not something earned. I think we are being too farfetched and politically correct in attempting to whitewash something as fundamental in Christianity as belief in Jesus as Lord and Savoir. Passing it off as only "one of many paths" and not the path or in the least a necessity of a path seems to represent more accommodationist religions such as Baha’i.

So I think it comes down to two sticking points:

  1. If we say acceptance of Jesus as Savoir is necessary to attain salvation, would this not represent a majority view? Do the majority of Christians think there are "other paths" to salvation that in no way involve belief in Jesus?
  2. If we say acceptance of Jesus as Savoir saves one from sin, would this not represent a majority view? Do the majority of Christians think this is not sufficient to attain salvation--that this is only one part of one or more paths?

I personally think most Christians would agree with both variations. In my opinion, those who consider works or a righteous life as necessary to attain salvation would also likewise consider belief in Jesus necessary. Those who choose to believe in "other paths," some of which may not even involve Jesus--if even by definition Christian--would also agree that of those "many paths," belief in Jesus is certainly one of them.

So by rejecting both of these variations, we are indeed representing as the majority view the belief that: acceptance of Jesus as Savoir is not necessary to attain salvation--that there are many paths to salvation; and that belief is Jesus alone does not garantuee salvation. Thus we are in my mind minimalizing the belief in Jesus as only a minor part in one's acheiving salvation.

Forgive me but I do not think this represents the majority Christian view. —Aiden 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can speak with CTSWyneken about "acceptance of Jesus." I have. This touches on the Lutheran doctrine of single predestination; I'm sure Calvinists, with their stronger doctrine of predestination, would also disagree. Yes, "Jesus provides salvation" is ambigious, but this is, of course, the intro. We can discuss different doctrines of salvation in more detail in the article itself. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC) PS: See Types_of_religious_predestination#Examples_of_non-Calvinistic_predestination. To a Lutheran, God chooses whom to save. Acceptance comes after salvation, not before. That's my objection. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

    1. there is no statistical basis to determine a majority Xian view on whether belief in Jesus is necessary. Catholics do NOT teach this and it has nothing to do with John 3:16 nor the Nicene Creed --JimWae 03:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    2. Catholics do NOT believe belief is sufficient. There is no statistical basis for a majority Xian view on this --JimWae 03:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    3. personal opinions do not count here, Even though there likely is a majority Xian view (one way or the other) on these, it is likely a bare majority, we do not know it, it is not sourced, AND it likely cannot ever be sourced --JimWae 03:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    4. Nobody is suggesting there be a suggestion in the text of "many paths".
    5. The intro can only present as the Xian view what it is clear the large majority believes. The intro does not provide enough space to explain all the differing viewpoints on HOW salvation is achieved. If you cannot accept the least common denominator of agreement in the intro, I think you are presenting arguments to remove all mention of connecting Jesus to salvation from intro --JimWae 03:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    6. The intro is also not the place to present the fullest explication of any topic. If something is not in the article, it does not belong in the intro -- JimWae 03:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
    7. it is long past time to remove the contentious text from the intro. I have been patiently raising objections to the langauge in this paragraph for at least a month - and I see no counter-argument to my points other than people's personal preferences. Other editors have agreed with my points & proposed changes. Time to go with Talk:Jesus#Aiden.2FArchola.2FJimWae_Version_2 - which is still not perfect - and move on. -JimWae 03:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

See my discussion with CTSWyneken. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, heck, I'll just post it myself. We're uncomfortable with the assertion that salvation relies on acceptance. Rather, acceptance relies on salvation, and I don't think it's just Lutherans who say this! Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Archola's conversation with CTSWYneken

Copied from CTSWyneken's talk page:

Our discussion on paragraph 3 is stuck on a debate on John 3:16 (JimWae has raised objections). See Talk:Jesus#Comments_on_Aiden.2FArchola.2FJimWae_version Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've not yet recovered from paragraph two, so I've not looked at paragraph three. I may look in long enough to ask (or you can) do we have citations to back all the statements in the paragraph? This one will be a real... challenge to manage without them. So, I'd ask for sources for the assertions.
My intial interest in the paragraph will be that Lutherans do not believe "accepting Jesus" is the basis of salvation. We believe salvation is God's gift from start to finish. We only accept Jesus AFTER He has saved us. (I can provide sources to that effect.
My observation would be we're likely trying to say too much about the Christian consensus. I think we'd be safer to speak about Jesus and miracles and the resurrection there. Even this is a bit of a slog.
My thought is, at the moment: once mess at a time. --CTSWyneken 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
We're basically working off of Aiden's original paragraph, expanded to include nontrinitarians and historicity (including the Nicene Creed). The Creed itself is a citation for a lot of it; JimWae is challenging that there is no citation for the interpretation of John 3:16, and Homestarmy and others are counter-challenging. My own opinion is to refer to the whole Nicodemus-Jesus discussion (not just verse 16) and include it not in the intro, but in either the "Life and Teachings" section or the "Christian views" section.
BTW, JimWae has asked how many Christians really believe in the virgin birth (although this has not provoked as much debate as John 3:16!) Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
We can easily cite info that most do. But I'm not done with the first and second paragraph. Can't everyone just let it go and help? *sigh* --CTSWyneken 03:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. As I understand it, the Greek work parthenos could mean either "young woman" or "virgin," and the Hebrew word in the OT prophecy it fulfilled simply means "young woman" Jim--our Jim, Jim62sch--and I have discussed this. But, we're getting nowhere with the Gospel of John.

Isn't it ironic that we waited until Lent to discuss the Christian views paragraph? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

... and there's endless discussion in scholarship about that. The big point missed in all this is that Jewish women of the first century were married at puberty. The only non-virgin young women were called something different -- wives, or women! But I'm not going there! Clean up last mess first, finish citation second, think about adminship third... --CTSWyneken 04:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
If I may chime in, personally, i'd really like John 3:16 here somewhere in the intro, because it's just so increadibly important to Christianity no matter what side of the viewpoint spectrum your on, and that section is supposed to be relating what most Christians believe. A big problem that seems to be happening is, well, we can't find facts or statistics. I googled for Catholicism and John 3:16 but nothing ever came up as far as I saw to the effect of Catholicism actually choosing a side. What are we gonna do? :/ Homestarmy 05:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
We were making considerable progress revising the paragraph until we got hung up on this one verse. I prefer John 3:1-21 myself. Right now we're debating necessary and sufficient causes for salvation.... Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
And that is one of the points over which the major Christian traditions disagree. And that does not even begin to catalog those most of us would not like calling Christian at all. (In the same way that most Jews do not like calling Messianic Jews Christian) Why are we taking this up in the intro at all, I wonder? As with paragraph two, this is supposed to be a summary. We can take it up later, with a link, IMHO. But I've already spend too much time on this. We have work to finish on para. 1 & 2; citations, remember? 8-) And since few others are helping, I need to squeeze it in a the beginning of an academic term, when students are desperately looking for me... So, that's about all I'm going to say on the matter, except for perhaps a refereee role. --CTSWyneken 10:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested "Christians believe that Jesus provides salvation." That's simple enough for the intro, and broad enough to cover everybody (I hope.) I also raised your point about "accept Jesus." Arch O. LaTalkTCF 11:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

That works, I think. I'll not get into the "where" int should go. Enough for now. --CTSWyneken 11:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. My contention all along has been that deleting John 3:16 as a reference in the intro paragraphs does not lessen the impact of statments and its inclusion creates problems for many groups. It is a wonderful verse, but it is an incomplete summary form many Christians. Storm Rider 05:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, that John 3:16 is very important to Christians is a reason for including it in an article on Christianity - not Jesus. I am not saying it cannot or should not be mentioned in this article, only that the reason you provide is not in and of itself sufficient. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

KHM03 and agrees with you. My point is that it is not the only important verse. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
But this paragraph isn't just about Christianity, it's about the majority Christian views of Jesus. This normally is contained in the Bible, which the article also notes is like the main source on Jesus. If everyone likes the "provides salvation" change, there needs to be a how explained somewhere, John 3:16 is one explanation of how which, so far, nobody seems to be able to prove as to whether it is or is not a majority belief, and anyway, shouldn't this all be explained in the Christianity article somewhere? Couldn't we just link this to a section in there dealing with it so people can go and see how Christians determine that Jesus provides salvation? Homestarmy 19:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. We have a link to salvation. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Alternative Salvation Sentences: 1). It is redundant to say both "Savior" and "salvation." Pick one or the other. Other than that, I like the sentences. 2) Doctrines of salvation rest on more verses than John 3:16. It's not that this verse isn't a majority belief; it's that it's incomplete to rely on only one verse. To put it another way, it's only a partial citation. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So then is the location of the full salvation discussion in Christianity somewhere? I'd kind of hope it is, it's really amazingly important to Christianity, can't imagine why it wouldn't be in there.... Homestarmy 22:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the full salvation discussion is here. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't see that coming. Well, it looks like a pretty well done article, seems to describe the sides adequately, and quotes various scriptures to show the how of it and whatnot. If John 3:16 seems so limited to people, what about linking to the subheading under Salvation instead about the Christian view, or hey, maybe link both John 3:16 and Salvation, I dunno :/. Homestarmy 02:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. I'll let others comment. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to single out John 3:16 for inclusion in the introduction - except perhaps to "tag" the article as being produced/endorsed by enthusiasts of that verse. Our purpose should be to build an NPOV article that welcomes readers, not play on factionalisms, nor thump readers over the head with single Bible verses - any verse can only be part of the story. The speaker and interpretation of this verse is disputed - and emphasizing this one is divisive. --JimWae 06:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello again JimWae! How are JFK and Oswald doing? ;) You have a point but you express it a little strongly. Christian views are based on the New Testament and interpretations of the NT such as the Nicene Creed. More details should wait for the body of the article. As I said before, I blame the Gideons for emphasizing John 3:16 over the rest of scripture. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
But John 3:16 is so great! I mean, you can hang it on banners, put it on T-shirts, make nice little button things, and whenever you just randomly say it, alot of people will know what your talking about! :D Homestarmy 14:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
James 3:1. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 14:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
1 Thessalonians 5:11 :) Homestarmy 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Aiden/Archola/JimWae version

John 3:16 and salvation

The NIV says "whoever", along with the NASB, the KJV says "whosoever", how is that not the same as "those"? Besides, I just talked with a Catholic yesterday on this very subject, he had a rather colorful word against your opinion Jim, it certainly cannot be said that no Catholic believes acceptance of Christ is necessary for salvation. Besides, i've reaserched plenty of apologetics sites since, you know, im a total fundamentalist, a couple had quite a few words to say against Catholoicism, while they generally go along the line of "The Church requires both faith and works" I haven't seen anything about the Church not requiring belief at all. A survey of the Church of England isn't exactly representative of all Christians or Catholics, and especially has nothing to do with whether faith in Jesus is required for salvation when your poll doesn't even have such a category. Homestarmy 14:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You are misinterpreting what I have said. I never said "no Catholic believes acceptance of Jesus is necessary..." However, the article cannot make any claim about what most Catholics believe on this matter since such is NOT what their church teaches them. Hence, any claim that most Xians believe such is an assumption without a source. "I know a Catholic who believes this" is hardly a good argument for including in an encyclopedia a statement about the beliefs of most Xians. See Venn diagrams --JimWae 16:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • the poll, btw, is about virgin birth --JimWae 16:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • why do you bring up sites having "quite a few words against Catholicism"? Are you AGAIN suggesting that when considering Xian beliefs, that Catholic beliefs can be discounted? --JimWae 16:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • and if the "ever' were omitted from "whoever", there'd be less of an argument about it being a claim about logical universality (Venn diagram). Not all Xians believe that divine inspirations frees the gospels from all hyperbole --JimWae 17:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Jim, my recommendation with primary path was an attempt to include Catholics. Does Catholic doctrine include another path to salvation other than Christ? Or are you saying that they simply use different terminology, but with the same meaning. I am not committed to the term "primary"; your proposal is okay, but implies that there are other ways to salvation. On another subject, I personally don't like quoting John 3:16; I view it as an incomplete scripture. There are too many other scriptures that represent Jesus saying "reprent and be baptized" or similar statements to be saved. There are Christians that believe that one must do more than just believe; demons believe and are still not saved; one must also act/follow Christ. My objective is to include that perspective in the statement. Third subject, virgin birth. It seems we are mixing what Christians as individuals might believe with what churches/denominations teach. Both are appropriate, but attempting to include everything individuals might believe is very open-ended. I recommend that we stick to doctrines of religions; they are a known quantity. Storm Rider 17:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you, Storm Rider, that Catholic doctrine know no other path to salvation than Christ. It does however place less emphasis on a conscious, active acceptance of Him. In the end, all that are saved are saved because of and by Christ, even if they didn't know about that. I agree with your points about the virgin birth. Str1977 (smile back) 10:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Catholic teachings are that even a baby in the delivery room can go to heaven - EVEN if it dies before baptism. They also teach that adults who lead a "just life" can be saved, even if they have heard of Jesus but never "accepted" him. They do not elaborate on "other paths", except to allow for them--JimWae 18:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
My mother is Roman Catholic and I have many Catholic friends, although I am not Catholic and thus admit my knowledge of Catholic dogma may be less than yours. However, I have NEVER heard any Catholic say that acceptance of Jesus as Savior is not required for salvation. I would venture to say that most Christians (Catholics and non-Cathlics included) would consider that a flagrant disagreement with a wide variety of scriptures (including John 3:16) which specifically state belief in Jesus is necessary. Now, sure various Christians denominations may have other requirements which must be met, but I would strongly disagree that most Christians do not consider belief in Jesus necessary requirement for salvation. —Aiden 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
see paragraph above your entry, please. I have repeatedly provided sources on Catholic teachings on this. We are ALSO getting into the issue of church teaching vs what followers think is taught. Catholic teaching is NOT that every word in the NT is infallible, correctly translated, and free of hyperbole - particularly not since different verses disagree with one another. They teach the church is the authority and scripture is A source - I think there was some kind of protest about this around 1517 --JimWae 18:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about Catholics. My own tradition (Lutheranism) has said that Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life, and that no one comes to God except through Jesus. However, I have heard some who use the "many paths" argument, although they weren't Catholics (or Lutherans). As for the virgin birth, this is meant to be fulfillment of an OT prophecy—but there is some debate whether the word in the OT means "virgin" or just "young woman." Arch O. La | TCF member 18:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: BTW my first proposed version mentioned "Christianity" rather than "Christians," thus separating dogma from personal beliefs. However, Aiden rejected this as being too mechanical. Arch O. La | TCF member 19:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
So if one does "get to God", they must have gone through Jesus - even if they never heard of him. Sounds like universalism, no? This whole issue does not even need to be in the intro of a biography article -- and as far as I can tell is hardly covered in ANY article on wikipedia -- and definitely NOT "covered" in the article that follows this intro --JimWae 19:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Properly speaking, we are attempting to summarize this section of the article...we just disagree on how to do this. This is appropriate to a biographical article since Christianity is main legacy of Jesus. Or are you going to argue that Paul made the whole thing up? Arch O. La | TCF member 19:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
and is whether belief in Jesus is necessary for salvation "covered" in that section? --JimWae 19:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Not directly...and the indirect "reconcile humanity with God" is covered earlier in the paragraph. I have suggested that the reference to John 3:16 be moved to either the "Life and Teachings, based on the Gospels" section or the "Christian views of Jesus" section, but I'm not sure whether Aiden would agree. So I'll let others comment. BTW, "Saviour" (redirected to the American spelling, "Savior") is a disambig page. Arch O. La | TCF member 19:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
and should a topic be introduced that is not "covered more fully" in the article? --JimWae 20:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
To cover it more fully in the article, we should look at the early part of John 3, not just John 3:16. It's this nice little Rabbinic dialogue between Nicodemus and Jesus over salvation and spiritual rebirth. Arch O. La | TCF member 20:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
My netbible translation does not even show John 3:16 as being a quote - and I think many other bibles are similar - thus it appears as commentary by its author(s)--JimWae 20:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
My hardcopy KJV shows it as a quote, which to me raises a host of other questions. Jim62sch 22:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, it's a quote. And it is generally considered a key verse (and that goes for Catholics too). Another issue is the interpretation of it included in the presentation in this article. Str1977 (smile back) 22:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
not according to http://www.bible.org/netbible/joh3.htm --JimWae 22:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody have the original Greek? BTW what does the Greek Wikipedia say? You know what it is to me. Arch O. La | TCF member 22:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The Greek version I have does not indicate quotes at all (meaning nothing is quoted). Jim62sch 23:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
The Grick Wiki does not mention John 3:16 at all. Jim62sch 23:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
also see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=3&version=31#fen-NIV-26132h - not that being a direct quote would settle anything one way or the other anyway --JimWae 22:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not that it settles anything, it's that as a direct quote it takes on a different meaning. Jim62sch 23:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, one can always argue about the best translation - but that doesn't make the actual words a quote any less. The narrative frame however might be a problem (if, e.g., "believes" is interpreted as actively accepting Jesus etc.) Str1977 (smile back) 22:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον. It's Greek to me, so I'll let translators argue about what it means. Arch O. La | TCF member 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Are there many other proposed examples of Jesus speaking repeatedly of himself in the 3rd person? --JimWae 22:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus often talks about the Son of God and the Son of Man in the third person. Arch O. La | TCF member 22:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, that depends on if we look at only the 20-25% that can really be attributed to Jesus. The quote in John 3:16 is clearly Greek-influenced. Jim62sch 23:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we back to the Jesus Seminar? They aren't the majority of Christians, but are appropriate to the historicity debate. Arch O. La | TCF member 00:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Anywhere else he does so for a whole paragraph? --JimWae 22:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the original discussion, I think the point is, Catholicism does not openly teach that trust in Christ is not necessary at all for salvation in all cases. If we start getting bogged down with Catholic beliefs and whatnot over who needs to believe when and why, at the end of the day, we're just going to get into yet another fight, and to tell you the truth, I don't relish the idea of it being over Catholicism, it can turn into a really ugly subject to start debating. Even if Catholicism might teach that it's not necessary in some instances, (Which considering the size of the church, there may be large sections which disagree with the Vatican for whatever reasons) it certainly does not try to say that John 3:16 is just pointless, both Catholicism and protestant denominations should agree on John 3:16 as being the truth as a clear majority, while Catholicism might dispute it is the only answer under certain circumstances, they are not part of some increadible majority that says it is not the only way. A majority is not necessarily an increadibly large one, but in this case, the majority of Christians seem to affirm to John 3:16, whether they may believe there are other answers or not.Homestarmy 23:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it NOT clear what the majority view on John 3:16 is (other than that it is in the NT) & for that & several other reasons presented above, reference to it in intro needs to be dropped. Referfences to scripture should not appear in the intro attached to text the meaning of which is questionable. --JimWae 23:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
People, we are focusing on the Catholic view too much. Many groups agree with Catholic doctrine in areas. The intent is to make the intro as palatable/broad as possible. This is the Jesus article, not the Christianity article. I understand the importance of John 3:16 to many Christians, but it is not a absolute for other Christians. John 3:3-5 has always been more important to me personally. It is not that I or many other Christians disagree, but that we feel it is not complete. For that reason, I proposed that citing the specific scripture is inappropriate. Question: what do we lose by not citing it? Storm Rider 01:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Again I move that we expand the reference to John 3:16 to include the entire Nicodemus/Jesus discussion, and then include that in either the "Life and Teachings" or "Christian Views" sections. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Looking at all of the discussion I agree. If we we really want to include John 3:16, we could start the passage saying that Christians believe that JC came to save humans (with John 3:16 as a reference), before dipping into the issues of the Trinity and the Nicene creed. Str1977 (smile back) 10:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, we should keep in mind that this is the "Jesus" article and not the "Christianity" article. Str1977 (smile back) 10:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed a simpler version for the intro: "Jesus provides salvation." See below. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 10:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Doctrine

To quickly sum up Catholic doctrine:

  • Baptism (which is being born again through water and the holy spirit) is necessary for salvation.
  • Water baptism however can be replaced by "baptism of blood" (martyrdom) or "baptism of intent" (you wanted to but were prevented by reasons beyond your will)
  • in "Baptism by intent" the intent can be explicit (as explained) or implicit, which is more fuzzy.
  • all debates are about the scope of this implicit intent.

Str1977 (smile back) 23:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

-- and it is not up to the editors of this article to do original research and decide what counts and does not count as baptism by implicit intent. Catholic teaching is that there need not be explicit "acceptance of Jesus" --JimWae 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

In every and all cases, or just in a few? We can't pick and choose Catholic beliefs either to say what they do and do not believe in all cases. Find a source which specifically states that the Catholic church denounces John 3:16 as unncessary in all instances and then we might have grounds for a debate, but then there's still the matter of Catholicism having a wide range of personal beliefs within their denomination. Homestarmy 23:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Your terms are absurd. You know it will not denounce John 3:16 - it just does not take the NT literally. You are not keeping up - others have already presented data supporting my position. When presenting the views of MOST Xians in the intro, it is not advisable to pick those that represent major divisions. Furthermore, topics should only be in intro if discussed in main article --JimWae 23:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Terms for what? If Catholicism does not take John 3:16 literally then there needs to be something more than "Because they don't always abide by it all the time, they don't support it at all, and therefore represent a majority who believe John 3:16 is unnecessary. Do you really think all Catholics are so steadfastly united behind faith that John 3:16 is not necessary? Considering John 3:16 considers Jesus, I don't see how that doesn't work for the introduction. Homestarmy 23:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
What Jim meant by "your terms are absurd" was your "Catholic church denounces John 3:16 as unncessary" - the RCC doesn't denounce or renounce parts of Scripture. But Jim's "does not take the NT literally" is also problematic - though the terms "literally" - "not literally" are popular in general discussion they are not really useful to denote the actual interpretation in most cases. The RCC interpretes John 3:16 in line with the rest of the Bible and on the basis of Tradition. BTW. In case of the RCC you needn't ask about "all Catholics" - Catholic doctrine exists independently from how widely it is believed. Str1977 (smile back) 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The RCs teach that unbaptized babies go to heaven - all of them --JimWae 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That's plainly wrong. There is no definite teaching on what happens to unbaptized babies, as revelation did not address this. We can only draw logical conclusions from what is said to be "neccessary" or keep "God's characteristics" in mind. Str1977 (smile back) 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Homes, I suggest that you take a deep breath, and a bit of a break. Not all Christians are Fundamentalists, nor are they Catholics, nor Orthodox, nor anything other sect/denomination. In all honesty, I find your statements about Catholics to be offensive (and no I am not Catholic, I'm the Agnostic in Archola's TCF). Let's not let this degenerate into a war between different versions of Christianity as if there were some "correct" version.
As for John 3:16, it is of primary interest to Fundamentalists -- a group to which most Christians worldwide do not belong. Can we please move on? Jim62sch 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this shouldn't degenerate into a war, but I also resent Jim's snear that there is no correct version of Christianity - it's just not for us to find out right here and right now. John 3:16 is not "of primary interest" merely "to Fundamentalists" - it is an important verse to all Christians. Str1977 (smile back) 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I dispute that Radio-Controlled Christians teach that unbaptised infants go to Heaven. Whatever happened to Limbo? Oh, and a metacomment: Does anyone besides me find it ironic that we waited until Lent to debate the Christian views paragraph? Arch O. La | TCF member 23:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Limbo, like Purgatory was, of course, an invention of the early church. Jim62sch 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Both of which are neither Heaven nor Hell. Arch O. La | TCF member 23:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  • When Limbo and purgatory were "doctrine", it was taught that at the end of the world both would be converted into Heaven JimWae
  • While undoubtedly some Catholics disagree with their Church, the same can be said of members of Protestant faiths. Absent evidence of the exact numbers of Catholice (or Protestants) who maintain one MUST accept Jesus to go to heaven, wikipedia cannot claim there is a majority view on this. Whatever the majority might be (I do not claim to know), it is still divisive to introduce the topic in the intro & then never discuss it -JIMWAE
  • The Bible is not a text of logic, nor a book of precise laws, nor an exact history of the world, nor a rule book that clearly covers every move in life. It is a series of stories and letters told to encourage and advise people. It is no surprise that a collection of words written by different authors would say contrary and even contradictory things --JimWae 00:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the Limbo article, it appears that Limbo was not originally a metaphysical location. Rather, it was Roman Catholics being agnostic—they couldn't say whether unbaptized babies and those who died before Jesus' incarnation would go to Heaven or Hell, so they just left it up to God. Limbo was the borderline between Heaven and Hell, and only later came to be regarded as a separate place. As for Purgatory, that's usually presented as sort of a temporary Hell (Hell itself being eternal) to punish and/or purify minor sins. Kind of like Dilbert's Heck, ruled by Phil the Prince of Insuffienct Light, only meaner.

As for John 3:16, the reference was originally Aiden's idea, so I suggest we wait for him to respond further before discussing it further. Arch O. La | TCF member 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Limbo never was part of the doctrine - it was/is merely a theological theory. Based on what revelation says about what is necessary for salvation (baptism), some (notably Augustine) concluded those lacking baptism couldn't go to Heaven and hence have to go to Hell. Of course, that doesn't sit well with God's compassion and love and hence hence some theologians came up with Limbo, outside of Heaven and Hell. That idea creates new problems and hence nowadays one is more open to leave the question open than in former days.
Purgatory on the other hand is a state of preparation, of purification before entering Heaven. Str1977 (smile back) 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

For those of you who thought that my Greek was square earlier, here's a screenshot:

Arch O. La | TCF member 00:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, IF one takes (just) John 3:16 literally, faith is a sufficient condition - NOT a necessary condition --JimWae 01:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we're getting off-track here, this isn't supposed to be about Limbo and Purgatory, (Please, no getting into a debate about Catholicism, I don't care if that guy was offended, it is a bad idea to start ragging on Catholicism whether people like it or not, it can be a really complicated and touchy issue.) the point is whether belief in Jesus is known to most Christians as a pre-requisite for salvation . Note the use of "a" rather than "the", which does not necessarily even indicate all Christians believe in a plurality of methods, I wouldn't be opposed to a re-wording of this sentence to cover this. I've tried googling for Catholicism and John 3:16 and pretty much came up with nothing useful, and I am fully aware that many denominations may choose to not take certain parts of the Bible literally, but I think the issue here is whether Catholicism does or does not take this particular verse to be correct. At this point, I think we need cold, hard facts and statistics here, it's obvious we're just getting entrenched around this, and it seems to me the only way around this is to get some facts and statistics on what exactly Catholicism believes, not how people want to stretch doctrine in some areas to cover antagonism against John 3:16, and sadly, against myself, not how people want to defend Catholicism without actually, you know, having any hard facts. I think we need to find some Catholics :/. Homestarmy 05:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. Been out for a bit and have tried to catch up on the discussion. I believe the one of the most important goals of this article is to provide an informative account of Jesus' life and teachings along with subsequent impact to a reader who may or may not know anything about Jesus. John 3:16 has been called the "Bible in a nutshell" and I originally included it because it is an excellent summary of core Christian beliefs, namely that: 1) Jesus is God's Son 2) God sent him to atone for humanity's sins 3) Acceptance of Jesus as Savoir saves one from the penalties of sin. We, as editors well familair with Christianity, may debate the fine points of such a broad summarization, but for the lay person who needs a general account (hence this paragraph's presence in the introduction), John 3:16 is a powerful tool.
That said, I don't see why we are even having this debate. We could have simply left the sentence in near original form and say simply that "acceptance of Jesus as Savoir saves one from sin." This will bypass the entire "other paths" debate. —Aiden 00:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Brief lesson in logic and other stuff

"All who believe in Jesus are saved" has no implications for the status of those who do not believe in Jesus. See Venn diagrams. John 3:16 is about the fate of those who believe and, taken literally, is about sufficient conditions - something about which Catholics and Protestants have had a clear and sharp disagreement since Protestantism began. As the sentence in the article stands, it is an utter misunderstanding of the scripture. Any statement about necessity would be original research on what is in fact the (bare) majority view. --JimWae 05:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that what we have in the article is already original reaserch whether we agree with it or not because we seem to have no citations, since we're working on this paragraph now, why don't we actually find some? Then it doesn't matter whether we argue over sufficient conditions or Catholics vs. Protestants, or how you think the scripture is mis-understood, (We could so get into an in-context argument, but I don't relish the idea) if we get the statistics and the facts, we can simply put them in the section, change wording accordingly if needed, and then be done, no more arguing needed. Homestarmy 05:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence needs to be dropped from the intro - it cannot be supported at all. Part of it is logically flawed, the other part is statistically flawed - no decision on majority view is possible regarding necessity --JimWae 05:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Are we discussing faith and reason again? Because I recently helped to talk KHM03 out of that debate... Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

We could do both for this debate technically, but at this point, I think nothing short of solid citations and reliable statistics will resolve this, (I mean im sure both me and Jim could go on for miles on this) though your idea to change the line seems to get around all this arguing a good bit. Homestarmy 00:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And without statistics, the claim needs to be removed - someday soon.... And John 3:16 is not about necessary conditions anyway --JimWae 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And here is where an excellent debate has the possiblity to start over how the "you must be born again" line relates to John 3:16 in terms of necessesary conditions, however, I don't see how such an argument is absolutly necessary, it could take awhile really. But the point is, we don't have statistics on the trinitarian part either, which im a bit surprised we haven't even gone over yet recently as far as I can tell, yet that's still there. Why must John 3:16 be deleted because we have differences in theological understanding of John 3:16 and what it means in the Bible and how we can best generalize all Christians, if we haven't deleted everything else in the article that isn't cited clearly?Homestarmy 01:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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

More JimWae objections

Bible Prophecy

- redirects to Christian eschatology - which seems to be entirely about the "last things". I doubt Jesus has already fulfilled that. What's a better link? --JimWae 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a better link. I think what we're trying to say is that, to a Christian, Jesus fullfilled the OT prophecies of the Messiah. Of course, a Jew would disagree. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Jesus fulfilled some of those prophecies. He will fulfill the others on his return. rossnixon 09:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Whatever we say here should indicate that Christians believe that in general. The trick is that each tradition within Christianity has a different take as to how this is so. If we need to, we can address that in a separate article. --CTSWyneken 11:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, separate articles, I like that. Jim62sch 11:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
There are those who would say that the English Wikipedia already has too many separate articles on Jesus. Uncyclopedia (the parody of Wikipedia) has a whole pantheon of Jesus! As Paul (of Tarsus) might ask, is Jesus divided? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I found a much better link here. —Aiden 21:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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

One will or 3?

The Trinity article says the 3 persons have one will. How is it that one person could send another to do something if they all have the same will? Would it not be more consistent to say Jesus came to Earth of his own will? --JimWae 07:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Now who's being divisive? It's because they are all God, and God has one will. Just because God comes in three Persons does not mean that God has a split personality! But this discussion really belongs at Talk:Trinity, where BTW they have discussed what "persona" means in the Trinitarian context. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Fellow editors: let's not get into charging each other with things, OK? The simple solution to that one is simply to find a source that discusses the issue, find language to describe what the school of thought to which he/she belongs and move on. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings! Our still unchanged 3rd paragraph says: "Jesus was... sent to provide reconciliation with God" --JimWae 07:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We're back to John 3:16: "For God (The Father) so loved the world that he sent his only begotten Son (Jesus)..." But it's late here and I need to go to sleep. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Me too - and I've got work again in the am. Until next time. Btw, the only iota of sense persona makes to me are the roles in a play - but I hear that's some kind of heresy - but it seems every explanation that even starts to make sense of it gets that label --JimWae 07:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can discuss with you by email or in another venue how Western Christian theologians have explained such things. Suffice to say now, "it's a mystery" figures large in the answer. --CTSWyneken 11:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I've learned it's a dual nature sort of deal, as Jesus was both God and a man at the same time. It makes plenty of sense to me, I mean the Bible does say He was God and that He was a man, but like CTSW says, there ought to be some sources out there giving a popular explanation for the trinity thing. Homestarmy 13:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The most important thing about the trinity is that it is never mentioned in the Bible. Even though Christians have killed people (like Michael Servetus) for doubting it. Is it not strange that all of those writers would omit such an important fact? Rick Norwood 13:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Rick, please do not attack the belief of others by throwing red meat into the discussion. It is not help create a good article. --CTSWyneken 17:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about Michael Servetus, but it doesn't bother me. I'm more bothered by the Crusades, but they were before my time. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not directly, but it's like assembing a puzzle. We take everything said about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit that's in the NT, and found a way to put them rogether.
This may be beside the point. We did decide to separate references to John 3:16 from references to the Nicene Creed in the third paragraph. As JimWae pointed out, the language still reflects John 3:16. The Nicene Creed merely states that Jesus came down from Heaven; it doesn't get into who sent whom. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 14:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's so much easier and makes so much more sense to recognize that there is no Trinity... --Oscillate 15:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
What has this got to do with the article? Let's focus on the article, OK? --CTSWyneken 17:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
We're talking about Christian perspectives of Jesus. Arch O. LaTalkTCF
Is there a spoon? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Archie, is the above really necessary? --CTSWyneken 17:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's just a little Matrix joke (Morpheus, Neo, Trinity). I'm sorry if it offended anybody. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Um ... guys? This entire discussion relates to the Trinity as a doctrine, but only tangentally to Jesus as a person. Is there any particular reason we're arguing this here? Justin Eiler 15:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Because JimWae brought it up. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Related to the 3rd paragraph and the wording that 'Jesus was sent ...' I don't think anything needs to be changed here, those who think Jesus was God have their explanations for that phrasing being correct. --Oscillate 15:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oscillate, since you seem to be a nontrinitarian, perhaps you could find a better phrasing for nontrinitarianism than just, "Oh, they don't accept the Nicene Creed." Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In the Introduction? I think it's fine the way it is and the view gets its treatment later in the article under "Christian Views". --Oscillate 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Folks, what at all does this discussion have to do with the Jesus article? We are here to represent what scholarship says, not what we do or do not believe ourselves. Does anyone doubt that scholarship claims that at least some Christians believe that God exists as one God in Three Persons? --CTSWyneken 17:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
So, somebody bring us some scholarship! But CTSWyneken is overworked as it is. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, this was brought up only because of Jim's question about the phrasing in the 3rd paragraph of how 'Jesus was sent' and if that conflicted with the Trinity's description of persona/wills, etc. Nothing other than that, and any discussion outside of that point, which I think can easily stand the way it is, is unrelated talk. It wasn't a question of whether or not to have a mention of the belief in the Trinity. --Oscillate 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Something to think about: When the church of the oikoumene (the known world of the day) was discussing the issue of whether Jesus had one will or two wills it determined that He has two (6th Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III {680-81 A.D.}) and they based this on the natures not the persons. As only one Person or Hypostasis some argued that He would have only one will. The church determined that he had two wills or energeia (Greek) because He had two natures (divine and human). God has one will, Deity has one will, and this is determined among Christian thinkers on the basis of nature not on the basis of Person. There is only one divine will based on one divine nature. drboisclair 17:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's very interesting, but I'm not sure it's relevant to this article. We're here to report, not to advocate. Discussions over whether or not Jesus is actually God make for good debate fodder, but it would seem to me that the best thing for the article would be to report that some Christians believe that Jesus is God, and some do not (proportions and statistics would be great, but I have no idea where such statistics would come from).
Now, to my point of view, it seems that "Jesus was sent" covers both Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian beliefs. If there's anyone here who disagrees, then we need to expand this conversation, but if we can all agree that it covers the basic beliefs, then perhaps we should accept the phrasing and move on? Justin Eiler 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Works for me. I'm waiting to hear from JimWae. But as I said before, I feel further discussion belongs at Talk:Trinity. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... Matthew 28:18-19

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. 1 John 1:1&14

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Colossians 2:8-9

One can show evidence for both sides but this isn't an article on the debate of the Trinity. Our only job is to simply report the majority and some minority views of Jesus. —Aiden 21:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Then why continue it by making arguments here, tempting rebuttal? Yes, one can argue both sides. Very small, very valid translation differences make everything change. There are a range of scriptures both sides will bring out. But, as you stated after discussion, this isn't the place for the debates. I don't think there needs to be a change in the wording of the 3rd paragraph. --Oscillate 21:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If you must, both of you, please continue the debate at Talk:Trinity and/or Talk:Nontrinitarian. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If we don't have real statistics for any of this, why don't we just leave it exactly as it is and move on until such time as someone finds a statistical source? And you know, we don't really need statistics to say that some things are true and other's aren't in a population, I mean come on, some things are just almost givens. Homestarmy 21:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
CONCUR! (Sorry ... didn't mean to shout. :D) Justin Eiler 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus/Christian_views_in_intro/Archive_2&oldid=1136842611"