Talk:Christianity

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christianity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Is that simple English? I don't think so. I'll try to think of a better word.

Impregnate isn't simple English?

Worth noting: it is a Catholic-only belief that Mary had anything to do with Jesus' conception, other than to bear him. Using "Simple" language, the Father conceived Jesus in Mary, who bore and gave birth to him.

I'd say the simple version is actually very, very close to being entirely accurate. There's no need for complexity; the message itself is simple.

Can I suggst we structure this page in a similar way to the Christianity page on the English wikipedia. That page has already had more thorough contributions and edits. We don't need to reinvent it all. At the moment this page suggests Christianity can be reduced to beleifs and a history of divisions. There is more to Christianity. Just nigel 06:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Blockinbox said "our simple article was built up carefully and over a long time by many editors, and should not be chucked overnight in favor of a carbon-copy of the English article, which is notably deficient, but unlikely to improve because of the tiny clique that dominates that article." Whatever you think of the contributors on the English Wikipedia article on Christianity need not limit the extent of inormation we provide here. I can asure I am not just posting a carbon copy. I am however slowly working through this page to add my contribution and improve it. In my changes to the introduction yesterday, I used both the English site and the existing introduction here as resources. I was disappointed you removed those changes. They contained more information than was previously here. It also contained more references, when previously there were none. In the absense of any evidence what I wrote was incorrect, I have reinstated it.

If you wish to dispute any of the information I have added, please let us know. If you object to any of the references I have added, please let us know. If you think I have removed something important that the introduction used to contain or should contain in the future, please let us know. If you think the introduction is now too long to serve as an adequate introduction, please let us know. (Just nigel 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC))Reply

Reasons why the belief's section needed rewriting: The beleifs as they were paid too little reguard for the Jewish history of Christianity and the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures, which make up the majority of the Christian scriptures. My suggested remedy was to add Abraham, Moses, Ruth, David and Isaiah as significant examples from this history. Beliefs about the Holy Spirit were absent excpet for naming the Spirit in the abstract when describing the Trinity. Some comments like "Catholics beleive this but it is not biblical..." were unatributed and too argumentative. I simplified language. Concepts like "sin" and "salvation" are important to Christian beliefs but needed more simple english descriptions at first use. Just nigel 05:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Jesus never did sin" ...???

Your changes went way beyond what you gave described above by cutting out some key elements that are far more important than Ruth or Isaiah. A mention of Ruth and Isaiah should be sufficient without cutting out the main things Christ talked about being necessary requirements. Blockinblox 12:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

We might need to say something about how common, and added references to verify that these are Christian beleifes (common or otherwise). Some things like Jesus' life and death may be very common beleifs among Christians. Others like the escatology described here would be far more contested among people who identify themselves as Christian. (Again a lack of references hinders this section - where is the eveidence that Gehenna is the same thing as Hell?)

We might also need to say something about what constitutes belief and the role of 'belief' within Christianity. One of my concerns about this article is it suggests Christianity is defined by what one believes. What of the role of following Jesus' way in life ("taking up the cross and following him" as described in the Gospels) or the cultural associations many people have with Christianity, which are not or only loosly based on belifs (as in the description of a country as a Christian country)? (Just nigel 05:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC))Reply

I like how this section uses an historic approach to describe differences within the people who identify themselves as Christian. I think it is a very helpful way to describe how the groups have emerged and relate in varying degrees with each other.

I think it is simplistic too say such differences are just about doctirne. I have already added the phrase "and practice" but there are other factors too such as political and cultural differnces. An editing of this section could allow for their influences too.

Later in this section it describes cultic practices, as in the ways people within the religion express their worship. Could we eventually divide this into two major sections, one describing the denominations/movements/traditions/sect of Christianity and another specifically about churches at worship/ritual/sacrament?

And before I go, there is still a lack of NPOV. I might have stripped references to "Catholics aren't Biblical" earlier in this page but what does it mean when it says "Some Protestant churches have ceremonies more or less similar to the Mass, but they believe the bread and wine are just symbols that remind us of what Jesus did." (Just nigel 05:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC))Reply

Is it really useful to have a reference to the Cathars as the first external link? They are an (albeit important) footnote in western European Christian history. I think it confuses the article to have a fringe (and as far as I know no longer practiced) theological system linked here. If we started listing all the historically significant fringe groups in the Chrisitan faith, just the links to those groups' histories would be longer than the present article in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.152.44 (talk • contribs)

I think having a link to alternate veiws is a good thing to preserve NPOV somewhat, but I do have to agree its placement at the top isnt exactly essential (I moved it to the bottom). I think listing all fringe groups would be more in keeping for a list or seperate article with a small section here with a link and recap of the main article. As an external link, one serves as an example, all is overkill. -- Creol 07:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

From the intro:

"Despite being called a religion, it is actually based around finding a relationship with Jesus."

As opposed to members of other religions who have no relationship with their gods?

You have a point. I think that might have been put in by a person from one of the evangelical or charismatic groups which stress each person's individual relationship with Jesus. I wouldn't mind seeing that sentence removed entirely. Any other ideas? John Carter (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, that is what we believe. If you just reworked the wording and maybe moved it to the common beliefs section or something along those lines then it might sound less piety, if that's what you're trying to avoid here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.185.169 (talk • contribs) 04:03, July 27, 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I split a longer section (about the different councils and splits) into shorter ones. I also added Council of Ephesos (where the Assyrian Church of the East split). If anyone has the time, a deeprer explanation of Nestorianism (as in the Ephesus council) vs. the nature of god contorversy (monophysitism/miaphysitism) as it surfaces in the Council of Chalcedon would be helpful. --Eptalon (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because many of our readers may be unfamiliar with Christianity or from non-Christian countries, I think it would be more respectful to use BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (common Era) for dates. The actual year is the same (321 AD becomes 321 CE) and the effect is more neutral. If most editors agree, could a bot do the fixing? Cwilsyn (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure whether your comments refer just to this article or to all articles. If it is just this article I see no reason to use CE. If you are proposing a more general change then I think you should raise it at Wikipedia:Simple talk. In the case of Common Era versus AD, the Manual of Style states at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Longer time periods

Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used — spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper case. Choose either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before or after a year ("AD 1066", "1066 AD"); the other abbreviations appear after ("1066 CE", "3700 BCE", "3700 BC"). If an article already uses one style, do not change to the other style unless there is a good reason for the change.

I personally find nothing particularly respectful about BCE/CE compared with the other type when it comes to an article that actually deals with Christianity. Because our readership does not have good English skills I would suspect that they would find BCE/CE more confusing as it is less used and I believe it is is generally used by academics rather than in general writing.--Matilda (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello just wanted to bring a few ideas:

• Are there any big Christian Groups that do not believe in the Trinity? (The Mormons, and Jehovas Witnesses are not Christian). What about the Copts/Oriental Orthodox? -The Cathars did not believe in Trinity, the Arians didnt either, both are exinct.
• God sent Jesus (himself in human form) into the world - I think we should leave out the himself in human form (There were many discussionsd on the nature of god)
• I think we should say very clearly that Mormons and Jehowas witbnesses see themselves as Christian, but the rest of the community usually does not. (Same with Unification Church, which is not mentioned)

We might mention that different Christian groups have different beliefs on the nature of Christ (myphysitism, monophysitism), though I don't know how to tell that in Simple English.--Eptalon (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

As you'all see, the disagreements sections are far outweighing the rest of the article. My computer got weird before I finished small patches, but I think several people need to look at the overall purpose and design. Cwilsyn (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Added section of trinity, probably needs simplifying and moving around. --Eptalon (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Again we're adding more historical disagreements, when probably 80-90% of modern churches hold the same belief (in theory anyway). I think the Tertullian quotation should be moved to the Three in One entry, and perhaps paraphrased. Some other details in this article could go elsewhere, if my understanding is correct that this article is the gateway or introduction. Cwilsyn (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The idea of trinity is a well-accepted belief in Christianity. However what I added here is not yet in the trinity article. Only few groups disagree with the idea of trinity (however, there are differences in how it is seen, e.g. the filioque which splits Eastern Orthodox, and Western-rite Catholics). Therefore what probably needs ot be done is to merge the trinity info here to the trinity article.

Also note that the difference between Sabellianism and Trinty are very minor. Sabelianism talks aobut different "masks", in the idea of trinity, the three are different persons.--Eptalon (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Christians believe that in the end they will be judged; they will either get what is called eternal life, or eternal damnation. The idea of purgatory has recently been abolished.
• Some Christians believe(d?) in predetermination
• Most Christians believe they need god's grace to be saved (The Pelagians didn't)
• There are certain sacraments - these help experience the grace of god. Different churches do not fully agree on the sacraments.
• Protestant reformation and Catholic counter reformation; Crusades were wars in the name of religion.
• Influence on the Arts: Catholic Churches / Abbeys often have many images of scenes in the Bible. Protestant churches do to a lesser extent. Islamic mosques are only adorned with mosaics, not images. Also note influence on the history of music. Almost every "modern" composer has written a mass, or parts of it.

We should try to incorporate some of the criticism (see en:Criticism of Christianity) In my (personal) opinion, this article serves as a gateway, to tell what Christians believe (as opposed to Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus) - It is clear that in the 2k years after jesus' death different ideas developed (please note: this is also true for Muslims, and probably Jews and Hindus). In that context, how Protestants differ amongst each other, or from Catholics is perhaps not that important. IIRC Catholics and Orthodox believe almost the same things.

Anything else we should get in there? --Eptalon (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Very informative. Christians who are in fact True Christians do not face judgement only rewards. --User:John Robert Fahlsing--

The title, list of bulletpoints sections don't look too good, can we perhaps make sentences there? --Eptalon (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some of the changes made since September have introduced incorrect information, especially about Catholicism. Can we editors get a thorough discussion going on this talk page before anyone makes more changes to the article? I think the definition of a gateway article is sometimes being overlooked, and I certainly agree with the problem of language difficulty. Cwilsyn (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think the first step would be to clearly identify the "wrong information" (and to find sources for it).--Eptalon (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I shifted the introduction as close as I could to a -neutral- POV. It would appear that editors are letting their bias affect their edits. P/T

Actually from what I read, you made it biased.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 06:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Biased? You are aware that what I took out are blatant evangelical claims, yes? You are also aware that the non-positive adjectives I included only preceded non-proven (and also non-cited) material? P/T

Would you like me to dissect you edit?-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 07:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll do you one better. Ill explain my edit. (Also, I refer you now to the complicated-English version of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity)

1. They believe that Jesus was born the Son of God and the Messiah (Christ).¨

This statement assumes the existence of a single god.

2. His birth was prophesied many years before he was born, and can be found in the Old Testament.¨

This statement assumes the authenticity of the prophecy in question. Evangelism.

3. To Christians, Jesus Christ is a teacher and revealer of what the Christian God teaches. He is an example of how Christians should live.

Christians know he is the saviour of all people, because he suffered, died for everyone's sins, and was resurrected to allegedly save people from sin.¨

Again, this is blatant evangelism. That he is an example of -anything- is not a fact, and therefore does not belong in an -encyclopedia-. It also assumes the authenticity of still yet more unproven events (such as the resurrection).

You didn't mention that every major Christian group believes that Jesus is coequal with God- that He is God. That is a significant omission on the part of this article.

I hope I have helped you understand. P/T

All that does is state what they believe and what the bible states, and yes it is encyclopedic.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 07:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There are fundamental differences between how one states what someone believes, and how one presents a belief as if it were fact. The majority of what I removed was guilty of the latter. For it to be encyclopedic, one would need to preface the belief in question ´´with´´ ¨such and such sect believes¨. To simply state something, as in ¨Christians know he is the saviour of all people because...¨, is to be neither objective nor accurate (as there are always alternative viewpoints). P/T

I am undoing the reversion yet again. While I am not opposed to anyone softening the edge I have put on my attempt at NPOV, continued reverts are not productive (And I am also heading to bed for the night and wont be sitting here to continue with the tug-o-war).Phentos (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

We'll see.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 07:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand where you expect to find a consensus considering you have yet to even address my edits with any degree of clarity. P/T

I'm only 18, I'm not an admin, I'm not a 'Crat. I want to get help here.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 07:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have tried to edit the article towards a more neutral point of view. I have done this mostly by starting sentences with "Christians believe..." I wish I could think of something more varied to say because the repetition makes for boring reading. LovesMacs (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

See....LovesMacs kept it neutral.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 21:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

My version was neutral as well. The difference is the LovesMacs left all of the evangelism that I took out. Just a reminder to everyone who is paying attention to this article -- the ultimate goal of any article is to be a simplified version of the normal wiki page! ( which I linked above) P/T

I am trying to get the article to be truly neutral, but everyone has biases, conscious and unconscious, myself included. I don't think it is neutral to claim that someone named Jesus died for people's alleged sins (a very bad paraphrase), nor do I think it is neutral to say outright that someone is the Son of God, or that there is a God for that matter, without some sort of qualifying statement. I used the phrase "Christians believe..." to make it clear that the following material is a point of view. Remember that NPOV does not mean the absence of viewpoints, but rather the lack of overall advocacy for or against a particular position. An article about Christianity should clearly and accurately state what Christians believe, without being unduly favorable or unfavorable. LovesMacs (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

And by removing that, Phentos, you are POV pushing.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 00:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Removing what? You can keep saying Iḿ POV pushing but until you actually provide evidence of such youŕe just being irritating. P/T

The facts of what Christians (including myself) believe.-- † CM16 ^{t _c r} 07:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've tried to improve the NPOV, but someone keeps reverting it, and insisting that they know better than the dictionary definition of a word. Sadly someone is intent on pushing their POV more than being accurate. 134.161.227.84 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

To clarify: The sentence "Christianity is based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, the main (character or person) of the New Testament, a section of a book known as the Bible, which is viewed as sacred in Christianity" makes it very clear that we are not talking about a man named Jesus who may have lived, but are talking about *the* Jesus of the New Testament, complete with all the baggage that entails, and fully 75% of the world has a problem with that statement. To claim that there is no debate that the Jesus of the New Testament existed is *very* POV, self-centered, and egotistical to a high degree -- not to mention dishonest and insulting.

Furthermore, the term mythology is defined as a collection of stories concerning a peoples origin, major events, or deities. I would say that this *very* clearly is the case, as the body of Christianity is the traditions created by and surrounding the myths and stories surrounding what is the major event of that religion -- which also happens to be a story about their deity. 134.161.227.84 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

134.161.227.84, that is entirely untrue. If you look at Judaism or Islam, neither of them say they are a "myth" – and if you look at English Wikipedia, it does not have the category either – it is entirely POV what is myth and not. Jesus was a proven person, with a birth date, evidenced facts, and so on. There is no realistic debate over weather or not Jesus was a real man. Therefore, he is not a [fictional] character, and the Bible is not a fictional story (facts from it are proven). There is (of course) debate over things he did or did not to, and that should be presented in a NPOV, but that doesn't mean it is fictional. Please stop adding your own POV, IP. TheAE talk 21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you are going to call the bible, and the stories about Jesus non-fiction, I am going to have to see proof. This ought to be impressive, as no one in the history of the world has been able to show the bible is non-fiction. Just because some believe there is evidence that a man named Jesus lived, there is not enough evidence to claim that the Jesus of the New Testament lived. There is a huge world of difference between the two people. You have done a decent job of showing that the former existed, but, sadly, the article is discussing the latter. Please be a little more intellectually honest and don't pretend that there is no difference.134.161.227.84 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

In the case of "character vs. person", I have removed both to avoid the issue (it now says only "center"). I have removed the category, do not add it again. What is a myth, and what is not is solely POV. Also, the category is not used on the English Wikipedia article of Christianity, so it is unhelpful here. Do not add it again. TheAE talk 21:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please discuss your changes here, American Eagle, and stop trying to force your POV in without discussion. You have repeatedly (more than 3 times today, alone) reverted or changed the same sections of text without discussion on this article. 134.161.227.84 (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You were warned over it. The page is now semi-protected until deputes are over. NPOV is (one of) the most important parts of Wikipedia. TheAE talk 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree, NPOV is important -- that is why I am *trying* to remove your POV and discuss the edits you are hammering home. Could you at least leave the page NPOV before you locked it? 134.161.227.84 (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

By that, you mean, "could you leave my version in it" first. It is your POV that it is a myth. I don't see you adding the category to ever other religion, only Christianity. TheAE talk 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I protected it with its original version, before this depute began. It needs discussion before addition. TheAE talk 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh? By earlier version, you mean the one you reverted to with this edit: http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=1383432&oldid=1383427 where you replaced main character with 'center'? or do you mean this one: http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christianity&diff=1381163&oldid=1380960 ? the one where *you* removed the word character and replaced it with person? Or do you mean the earliest version, before *you* started your streak of more than 3 revisions on this, where LovesMacs origionally used the term 'character', and this content was first added to the article? At the time I type this, it is still showing the latest version of *your* revisions. 134.161.227.84 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I mean before you added the category. "Center" is fully NPOV. See below for full response. TheAE talk 21:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

" Mythology (noun):A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes." Please explain how this article does not fit that definition. 134.161.227.84 (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is more than one definition of it. It is not included it other religions, and if added to this one, is not NPOV. TheAE talk 21:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

What kind of silly logic is that? That you can't make a change to an article, unless it already exists on another article? So in otherwords, we need to delete the entire wikipedia database?

You have yet to show that the *dictionary definition* is wrong. This article *clearly* fits the definition, whether you are adult enough to admit that fact or not. Since you cannot give a good reason why we should not leave the NPOV version in place, and cannot justify your actions, you are clearly locking this article in a vandalised version, and are refusing to impartially discuss the changes. I politely request that you unlock the article, and do not use administrative tools on this article, as you clearly cannot remain fair, impartial, and adult regarding this topic. Either edit this page as an editor, or moderate this page as a moderator, not both. 134.161.227.84 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It isn't silly logic. If Wikipedia has an article on two religions, say Judaism, and it only adds the category "myth" to Judaism, but not to Christianity, Wikipedia would be taking the side that Christianity is a myth, and Judaism is a good religion. Therefore, it breaks WP:NPOV, and is one's POV. It has nothing to do with not being "adult enough to admit it." If I "unlock" the article, then you are simply going to continue adding deputed content into the article, content that you think it true. I will bring this discussion up on WP:AN, where it will be discussed weather or not it is POV, and if it should be unprotected. Please wait. TheAE talk 21:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please revert it to the content prior to your edit warring. You locked it at the latest of *your* revisions, despite attempts to discuss this.

Your argument is still horribly flawed. You would argue that I cannot add mythology to this article because it is not on the Judaism page -- but in the time it takes to add that edit to that page, you are already removing it from this one, opening *that* page up to the same argument in reverse.

I still say that you are unable to be impartial about this -- you even lied on the talk page about what version you locked the article at! 134.161.227.84 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did not lie (and that could be taken as a personal attack, but I'll let it go). I meant the category was as before, which is the main dispute here. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Christianity_related_issues. TheAE talk 22:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

(<-) Just as a quick note: I added Cat:Mythology as a parent to Cat:Religion (in other words: it is no longer necessary to add it here); A quick rationale: To those who do not believe in a certain religion, whatever texts/teachings a given religion has will be just "mythology"--Eptalon (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps this could be an opportunity for informal dispute resolution with a neutral third party? You can log the request at Wikipedia:Solving disputes noticeboard. I'd be willing to help, or you can just log the case and someone else could take the case. fr33kman ^{t - c} 22:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello all of you, I have rewritten some of the paragraph:

• Jesus was executed under Pontius Pilate (sourced by Tacitus, who was a Roman historian, and no Christian, btw). The Romans usually did not execute imaginary people/characters
• The New Testament ... tells about Jesus - Like with any religion, belief settles in at some point in time; those called Christians usually believe that what is written in those texts is true; You can of course also look at the Bible from a purely historical standpoint (and discuss things like how translations into other languages changed the meaning of words).

My changes can be edited freely, but please do think before you edit. --Eptalon (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I believe Jesus' existence is also mentioned by the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman writer Pliny the Younger. LovesMacs (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello there, I just want to point out the following:

• Jesus was executed when P.Pilate was responsible for that region of the Roman Empire; this was from 26 to 36 AD (please note: AD was introduced much later)
• No date (or even year) of Birth can be given; the mention Before the death of Herod the Great (4 BC) given in Mt 2,1 is probably a reasonable assumption
• No year for the execution can be given; Given accounts in the Bible, it is probably between 30 and 34 AD, most likely 30 AD
• The account of the birth of Jesus given in the Bible is probably fiction (added later, made to fit various prophecies). Jesus first public appearance was not before 28 AD; at that time he was around 30 years old
• Jesus was the first child of Maria (Mk 6,3; Lk 1,23); and the son of Joseph (Lk 4,22), both from Nazareth. The Motif of a virgin birth of Jesus was probably added later.

Just wanted to point them out. --Eptalon (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some replies:

• • Perhaps the CE and BCE (Common Era and Before Common Era) could be used instead of BC/AD.
  • Any dates can only be approximate guesses.
  • Seen in a purely historical perspective, the accounts of Jesus' conception and birth may have been written much later. Christians generally take those on faith. Both of these can be mentioned in the article, but I think that the introduction should state what Christians believe. The complexity of that can be discussed later in the article. LovesMacs (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• This is not something I said should be included in the article; it was more on the Historical Jesus, FYI
• Very likely Flavius Josephus mentions Jesus; I am not sure about Pliny the Younger.
• using BCE/CE does not really solve the problem, because it relies on the same calculations (by Exiguus) as BC/AD

This article is about explaining things; It would probably be alright to say that Christian Writings do not cover everything, and certain things were added later (like the story about Jesus' birth). Believing something, and something being historically accurate are also different.--Eptalon (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

When someone has the time, please copyedit to replace:

• It is believed by .... -> ... believes (and similar formulations)

the passive voice sounds awful when we actually have an author. --Eptalon (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Some editing needs to be done to ensure that when not directly referencing God (proper name), that "god" is used. For example, the first two sentences should read "Christianity is a monotheistic religion. This means that it is a religion that believes there is only one god." DBishop1984 (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is a small wiki, with few people editing. Help in this respect would be appreciated. Please be bold...--Eptalon (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would, but unfortunately, I just joined and the article is soft-locked. =/ DBishop1984 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, unfortunately, we got a lot of IP-based vandalism on this article, so we had to soft-lock" the editing. This means that you'll have to wait about 4 days...--Eptalon (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

 Fixed Thanks for bringing it up DBishop1984, please do stick around, we need sharp eyes like yours. fr33kman ^talk 19:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I enjoy gnoming around the regular site, so I figured I'd swing by. DBishop1984 (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

NP, thanks for stopping by. fr33kman ^talk 20:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah... sorry, but in this context it would be wrong to use "one God" - think of capitalised God as the name of the Christian god, while other gods, any-old god, has a lowercase. In this context, you're saying they believe in only one god, and one flapjack, etc. VelvetCommuter (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello LoveMac, you're right! Josephus lived in the time of Jesus and recorded his death in terms very similar to the Bible, and wrote about his disciples too. I read it in a book in Korean, I'll try and find a good reference to quote from in English... Classical Esther (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

O, here it is. In Josephus's book, Antiquities of the Jews, translated by William Whiston in Greek, it said:

^3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

Another part that supports Jesus historically is also from the same book, in chapter 20. Scholars say it's about the execution of James. Most scholars say this quotation is real (Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1).

And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

As for Pliny the Younger, he did speak of early Christians, but I don't think he said anything about Jesus.
In conclusion, I am quite sure Jesus was a real person, though there may be disagreements whether he was really a Son of God or not. Yours respectfully, Classical Esther (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pliny, Letters 10.96-97, for example here --Eptalon (talk) 09:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The neutrality tag was added 3 1/2 years ago and there has been hardly any discussion on the issue in the last couple of years. Do we still want the tag up? I won't make the call myself as I feel that as a Christian myself I may have a conflict of interest. Kansan (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

To what I can see there were few edits in the last year (content-wise). Unless someone can point to items that are wrong, I think we can remove it. If there are no such items two weeks from this edit, I think it is safe to remove the tag. --Eptalon (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is what I wrote on Simple Talk in the discussion there:

"The article gives a good account of Christian beliefs, but it says not a word about the aspects of Christianity which have attracted most criticism, nor about the extensive literature on how the bible was put together, nor about the philosophical limitations of ideas which cannot be disproved. I'm just explaining why someone might legitimately think the article is one-sided. Had the title been "Christian beliefs" it could hardly be bettered. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)".

To summarise, the article is a good answer to the question "What are Christian beliefs?". It does not touch on the broader issues, many of which have been raised by Christian theologists as well as those hostile to Christianity. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is a good article. Does it include the beliefs of all denominations(groups) of Christianity? You can remove this if this question has already been answered. Also, maybe someone can list more Christian groups that are outside "the three big groups of denominations" section. Frogger48 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Since Christianity is so divided on aspects of belief, the page could scarcely deal with all denominations. There are great differences between the various protestant groups alone. See Free Church of Scotland for how far the splits go in one small branch. The page here includes what editors think is a fair account of core beliefs. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Should the article, "Criticism on Christianity" be merged into this article?

Frogger48 (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, it should not be merged. This page (Christianity) is overwhelmingly the Christian's view of Christianity. It is a good page, but entirely written from the Christian perspective. The page 'Criticisms of Christianity' is the only acknowledgement that there is another point of view. Unfortunately, that is not a good page, it is rather a poor stub. But its existence means that any editor could take it up as a project and expand it.

Also, I have to point out that yet again you have put up a serious flag to a page without explaining why you have done it.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the point of this page to give a Christian perspective? This is the page of Christianity, so surely it is the Christians who define it? Obviously we try to keep neutral, but it's hardly as if we ought add a disclaimer, "by the way, Son of God he ain't..." That's not what the page is for.

VelvetCommuter (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, well nothing new, but seriously the structure of this is mad. Jesus Christ ought not follow under worship, nor come so low down. I would suggest having a section for beliefs, and going through the Nicene Creed as a simple guideline. Then Worship, then something on the History of Christianity. If there are no objections I might see what I can do over the next few weeks... Thanks! VelvetCommuter (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The "Criticism of Christianity" section of this article seems very biased (ex. " . . . or we could use IVF, but Christians hate that too"), uses informal language (ex. "Many Christian priests rape little boys"), and the section doesn't even cite a source. The entire section is written in a way that doesn't seem to reflect the neutral expectations of Wikipedia and feels out of place. I almost feel that the user who wrote the section was either trolling or deliberately trying to mislead readers. Can we please look into it and make the necessary changes? Thanks.

Wiki nol ege █[:]====▶• 20:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

The information presented in the article on the Trinity is not an accurate representation of Christian belief. Here is my proposed revision:

Christians believe in the Trinity, which means that there are three distinct persons of the Godhead. The three persons are God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. God created the world. God the Son is Jesus, because they believe Him to be the Son of God. They believe that He was the human son of the Virgin Mary and the divine Son of God. They believe He suffered and died to free humans from their sin^[1], and was later raised from the dead to defeat death. He then went up into heaven, and is seated at the Right Hand of God the Father. Christians believe that Jesus will come back to Earth and judge everybody, both alive and dead, giving everlasting life to all Christians. The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God on the Earth that spoke through prophets.

Thank you.

Also, a user named Auntof6 removed my proposed revision claiming that it didn't belong on the talk page. It is quite obvious it does, as it is a proposed revision to the article.— This unsigned comment was added by Acts319Sam (talk • changes) on 05:54, 4 July 2015 UTC).

I removed your proposed revision because you posted it on Talk:Main Page. That page is for discussing the main page, not individual articles. The place to discuss an individual article is on the article's talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Should adherents be changed to people or something similar? Texan777 (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

In the "disagreements" section, it talks about the "first split" and the "third split" but never mentions a second split. 24.0.85.71 (talk) 06:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The fourth paragraph of the lead (in the current version) is written more like a confession of faith than an encyclopedia, so it should probably be rephrased. Batrachoseps (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question: Why restate in the last sentence of the opening paragraphs what was stated in the first? Change the number in the first sentence to conform to that in the last? ("Opening paragraphs" refers to all those above the first heading, "Jesus Christ".) Jorjulio (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to change it yourself fr33kman 12:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because as a Christian we are don't understand a Bible sometime and this book where's come from 41.115.15.53 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The different books of the Bible were written by many different people. You can find information about who is believed to have written each book by looking under the names of the various books. Jonahson (talk) 23:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Everytime I attempt to add a source and complete the edit it just direct my sources to the previous source with that number ([1] as the previous [1]). Is this because the last part of the page is formatted differently, Is this just a problem on my end? KCanadianJ316 (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2026 (UTC)Reply