Talk:History of Christianity

Use periods?

Most books on Christian history will use periods like these below (thou many of these are offten split in two as well.)

• Ante-Nicene Church, 1–313
• Christian Empire, 313–590
• Middle Ages, 590–1517
• The Reformation, 1517–1648
• Reason & Revivalism 1648–1789
• Modern Age, 1789–present

While every system of periodization has problems, these longer periods above have the difficulty of not leaving room to cover much depth. The only one written is the one on Early Christianity and it is also already over 100 KB (it is 144 KB and thus even longer than the History of the Roman Catholic Church).

These articles would have other problems too-- like the fact that their start and end points will not be understud the same by different editors. and that some events will always over lap time periods. None the less these would be good articles to create in due time. That said, I also think it would be easier and better to make them from the Christianity by centuries articles than making them into Christianity by centuries articles.

Of course most of the longer term events-- e.g. the Crusades-- already have their own articles, but feel free to create suitable articles as you see fit by the larger time periods. --Carlaude ^talk 02:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... well, if it were up to me, I'd delete the Christianity by centuries articles but nobody else seems to care at the moment so I won't push my position further. Wikipedia is not paper so there's no real harm in having the Christianity by centuries articles even though I think they are ill-advised. I personally think we should work with the periods you mentioned above and create those articles first. --Richard (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Along the lines of what I posted below (in conjunction with a comment above) ...

• Ante-Nicene Church and 1–313 Christian Empire 313–589 >> Early history of Christianity (and {{merge}} or subordinate, the latter may be better, the Early Christianity and History of Early Christianity articles to this article) [BC, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th]
  • Early Christianity [BC, 1st, 2nd, early-3rd]
  • History of Early Christianity [late-3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th ]
• Middle Ages, 590–1516 >> Classical history of Christianity [7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th]
• The Reformation, 1517–1647, Reason & Revivalism 1648–1789, Modern Age, 1789-1944 >> Modern history of Christianity [15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th , early-20th]
  • The Reformation, 1517–1647, Reason & Revivalism 1648–1789 >> Early modern history of Christianity [15th, 16th, 17th]
  • Modern Age, 1789-1944 >> Late modern history of Christianity [18th, 19th , early-20th]
• Late Modern Age, 1945–present >> Contemporary history of Christianity [Late-20th, 21st]

Opinions? J. D. Redding 01:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well for one, to make "Early Christianity" and "History of Early Christianity" cover different periods is confusing, and for no reason I can see-- and of course they cover the same time period now. I have also never seen anyone group the Reformation period with up to 1944. A break at mid 3rd-century also make very little sense. Every author sees Constantine as a major turning point. What do you think, Reddi, of the periods I wrote above.^{Carlaude:Talk} 02:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Contemporary, modern (early and late), "Classical" [aka., medieval], and Early [aka., ancient] are conventional historical timeframes overlaps.

I just mention the 3rd century break to be used if needed [depending on the amount of information]. The break at 1945 is at the WWII end and Cold War begin [borrowed from general history, not specifically from "'christian' history"; this is a general turning point] ... again all this is suggested as a convenience ... if a division isn't necessary, then don't use a division; also, if there is a better break point, use that ...

The Reformation ends the early modern period in general history; but specifically for "'christian' history" i would suggest that the "Reason & Revivalism" period would end 'early modern period'. Though a division of early and late in a 'modern period' may not be necessary at this time ... it is only a suggestion if needed ...

Ultimately, the main timeframes are 'Contemporary', 'modern', 'Classical', and 'Early' would allow editors to {{split section}}s. The secondary timeframe subdivisions can be ignored. Now as to how I would map these unto your cited ones is:

• Ante-Nicene Church, 1–313 >> Early history
• Christian Empire, 313–590 >> early classical history
• Middle Ages, 590–1517 >> late classical history
• The Reformation, 1517–1648 >> early modern history
• Reason & Revivalism 1648–1789 >> late modern history
• Modern Age, 1789–present >> Contemporary history

But these don't fall within more general historical timeframes ... Again, the Reformation ends the early modern period in general history. Marking 'post 1789' as 'contemporary' would be a stretch to me; Contemporary should mean more within 50 to 75 years (around the Fourth Great Awakening), not 200 to 250 years ago (around the First Great Awakening) ... J. D. Redding 05:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

General opinion: 1. in the choice between a uniq subdivision and a conventional subdivision, we should most usually prefer the conventional one to unrisk doing WP:OR; 2. when a scheme is shallow and have too long time span, nothing forbid us from doing own subdivisions, uniq or conventional. A mature article prob converge towards conventional because of adaption to other articles that are already conventional, so a temporary uniq scheme should be considered a transitional state. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

{{split section}}s

{{split section}}s anyone?

Splits could be: Early history of Christianity (1 Life of Jesus (6–4 BC to AD 29–36) to 3.8 Monasticism); Classical history of Christianity (4 Growing tensions between East and West to 12 Church and the Italian Renaissance (1399–1599)); Modern history of Christianity (13 Protestant Reformation (1521–1579) to 17.2 Restorationism); Contemporary history of Christianity (18 Contemporary history (1848-present) to 20.4.2 Ecumenism within Protestantism).

Any opinions? J. D. Redding 00:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But note well that Early Christianity and History of Early Christianity both exsist-- and era-based subsets there of.

See also my comments on my efforts at Talk:#This page may be too long, not far above. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Independent Source

What and when was the earliest independent source to talk about Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.208.19 (talk) 08:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to find that under Christian. One problem is that the term got confused with Chrestian and Chrest which were names associated with slaves in Rome. 75.15.201.136 (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have all of these? Early Christianity

Why do we have all of these? Anythoughts of merging some?

• Christianity in the 1st century (until 100 AD)
• Apostolic Age "the Crucifixion of Jesus (c. 26–36) until the death of John the Apostle (c. 110)."
• Ante-Nicene Period "late first century to... 325"
• Early Christianity "1st, 2nd, 3rd, early 4th"
• History of early Christianity "about... 30 to... 325"
• List of events in early Christianity "First century... Second century"

^{Carlaude:Talk} 18:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Apostolic Age and Ante-Nicene Period

Certainly :) There already seems to be some copying of bits. Apostolic Age and Ante-Nicene Period are the shortest and have the most specialized titles. The list can be left i think. The "History of" and Early Christianity take rather different subjects. I think the 1st century deserves its own article, so merging the two first mentioned where appropriate seems the way. Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay... if we did merge Apostolic Age and Ante-Nicene Period together, it will cover 30 to 325. How will it not become a fork (or mostly a fork) for Early Christianity, etc. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 10:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I'm suggesting. They should be merged into the other articles where appropriate, piece by piece. Not all will be needed. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. That will be better. Yes, not all will be needed, due to their repetition. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 02:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Apostolic Age should stay, that's a standard topic. Early Christianity should also stay, that's also a standard topic (Christianity before Nicaea). First seven Ecumenical Councils should stay, that's another standard topic. I think the List of events in early Christianity (probably not an accurate name, read the article contents) was originally spun out of Early Christianity because that article is so large, so it probably should stay, it would get lost if merged into Timeline of Christianity which also is already large. The rest of the stuff is optional, though there already is a huge series of "Christianity in the xth century", most recently created, what do you propose to do with them? Christianity in the 1st century could easily be a redirect to Chronology of Jesus and Apostolic Age, but the rest are not so simple. 75.15.201.136 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The series of "Christianity in the xth century", needs to stay because all the other history articles are so over large. The best way to cut down the size of these large time-period articles is to be sure martial is in the short time perions articles before it is removed.

I fail to see how "Christianity before Nicaea" is any standard topic... unless it is the history of that time and covers between the Apostolic Age and Nicaea.

I fail to see any need for a List of events in early Christianity-- even it could get lost. Let it get lost. It sure is not a "standard topic".^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Early Christianity was the parent article. History of early Christianity was spun-out due to length, according to standard practice and the topic's ability to support a distinct article. Apostolic Age and Ante-Nicene Period were spun out from "history of Early Christianity" for the same reasons. So long as the cited material justifies the increasing length and expansion, I do not see what concerns there should be. Vassyana (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Early Christianity and History of early Christianity just need to be cut down to size better with directs to the sub articles. The child articles should be more detailed than the parent articles but did not seem to be last time I looked. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 23:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Breaking Early Christianity into periods of centuries is artificial. Some items will get lost or duplicated across the century barrier, the dating of some items are vague and could be in either century, etc. The crucifixion is one hard point (c.33), the Nicene council is the other (325), in between there are no hard points, only a varying continuity. Even the transition from Apostolic Age to age of the Apostolic Fathers is vague. 75.14.215.179 (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

While your concerns about periods of centuries are unfounded-- I primarly ment that material from the articles on Early Christianity and/or History of early Christianity be moved into the articles on the Apostolic Age and Ante-Nicene Period-- whereever this is sutable. If they are real sub-articles they should cover some things in greater detail than are covered in the parent article. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 14:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

List of events in early Christianity

Also since we also have the events of early Christianity listed as part of Timeline of Christianity, I think List of events in early Christianity needs something done with it. Unless someone wants to make it into a (non-list) article on the split between Christianity and Judaism, it should be just merged into Timeline of Christianity. Even if we kept it, the the years 1-200 only is a strange time-frame to cover.--^{Carlaude:Talk} 19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was originally split out of Early Christianity, so it could be remerged back into that article, except that article may be too large already. 75.15.201.136 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sure it is over large.

Just because it was there in Early Christianity doesn't show any benifit to returning it there. Again, I can see the the benifit of splitting out text on the "split between Christianity and Judaism" and making that a separate article. Of courese an article of that sort does not necessarly need a large timelime section, but that just means that we do not have to keep the timeline in its current form. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a page called Early Christianity and Judaism (presumably on the model of Christianity and Judaism), which is currently a redirect. 75.14.223.180 (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Split section, contd

Yep. see above ...> J. D. Redding 01:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sections still need to be split. J. D. Redding 03:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Have created separate Medieval and Modern articles: this will be Early history of Christianity.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Having received an objection to the radical change the earlier section has returned to its old title. However I welcome more opinions on whether three shorter articles or one very long one are preferable. The three articles would work best with a summary article covering the whole 2000 years but compiling this would not be easy.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I had objected. First I think the summary article needs to made first, and have begun triming out parts of this article to that end.

Second, we already have loads of articles on the "Early history of Christianity" -- but articles on Medieval and Modern Christianity would be good things to have. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Modern Christianity" is Christianity in the 21st century. 75.14.219.223 (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That is Contemporary Christianity: Modern Christianity can be understood in more than one way e.g. from the late 19th century onwards or as roughly equivalent to Modern History from the mid 16th century.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure

So, Felix Folio Secundus, how about moving History of early Christianity to Early history of Christianity, and then recreating Medieval history of Christianity and Modern history of Christianity , but sure leave this page intact (except you are more than welcome to help cut its lenght and add links to the new article.)

It would seem best to me to let the Modern history of Christianity cover the time after that covered by the Reformation/Counter-Reformation articles. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 11:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion as a third party 'outside' observer: I would find distinct periods of the history of Christianity and divide them by more than three, as we have done in History of the Eastern Roman Empire. I know it will take time and a lot of hard work, but in the end it will be an awesome thing to behold. I created the template in that article based off of the "History of" template, which works well. Good luck! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 14:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Example of bad grammar being pushed by User:Carlaude

"Christianity began spread initially from Jerusalem to throughout the Near East,"

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.14.219.223 (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it is fixed now. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 11:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

created Medieval history of Christianity and Modern history of Christianity

BTW, I have now created Medieval history of Christianity and Modern history of Christianity.

We need to cover c. 313 to c. 500 sometime, by either including it in History of early Christianity (it could also be moved to Early history of Christianity) or creating a new article for just 313-500 with a name like Late ancient history of Christianity or History of Christendom. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 08:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved 'Christianity in India' to Apostolic Period

Moved 'Christianity in India' to Apostolic Period

Thomas the Apostle arrived along the southern Indian Malabar Coast in 52 AD and from this came Thomasine Christianity. It is incorrect to place 'India' under Post-Apostolic Church. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• That Thomas himself came to southern Indian himself is clearly disputed by some. There is not even any evidence here that it (Thomas coming to southern Indian himself) is a majoity view-- but even if it is the majoity view, it is not necessary or desirable to put this under the "apostolic period," because the text certainly discusses events after Thomas. Indian Christianity is more than Thomas Christianity, and Thomas Christianity developed its distinctions after Thomas.
• I do not know what you ment by "This is not an article in favour of them."
• Also-- stop reverting even if you disagree. Following WP:BRD means leaving the text as it was while we discuss.^{Carlaude:Talk} 14:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The main reason you give is that 'it is disputed by some'. So what?? Why should you give so much importance to those 'some'. Don't you know the fact that there are lots of historians who confirm the fact that St.Thomas landed in South India. Moreover the Saint Thomas Christians belong to various denominations and all of them share the same opinion that Thomas landed in South India. Also several Popes have asserted the origin of south Indian Christianity from the Apostle Thomas.

• This is not a contest to see who knows more people that agree with their positions. This is giving a WP:NPOV. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• This clearly is not a neutral point of view. This is in favor of the people who dispute the arrival of St.Thomas to South India. How can that be neutral!

OK let me make a suggestion. Move the text to 'Apostolic Church' with minor edits. Instead of saying "Christianity arrived......." change it to " It is believed that Christianity arrived along the southern Indian Malabar Coast by Thomas the Apostle in 52 AD and from this came Thomasine Christianity. These Syrian Malabar Nasranis kept a unique Christian identity untill the arrival of the Portuguese in the 17th century."User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Moreover the text was originally under 'Apostolic Church'. Somebody changed it without any discussion. So there is nothing wrong in reverting it and keeping it back under the 'Apostolic Church'. Please do not revert it just because you are not in favor of it. And please do not give silly reasons like 'it is disputed by some'. I am only moving it to its original position. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• No, the original state was like this— with none of this text. Stop reverting even if you disagree. You may remove the text entirely while we discuss, but I didn't think you would mind leaving it in the article somewhere— where it has been most of the time since being added. These corrections were made without "without any discussion" mainly because the text was added in the first place without any discussion. If you do want it removed entirely instead, go ahead. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Rahuljohnson4u, you seem to be muddling the reasoning I use here and at History of early Christianity-- for example you posted the same reply on both pages but it only seems to make real sense here at History of Christianity. I propose we work on just one discussion first (either you chose) and then the other (if it is still called for) later. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 14:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Even you had been doing the same i guess..! You were also posting the same replies on both pages. Anyways let us discuss in one page at a time. We will discuss in this page.User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is not an area of expertise for me but it seems to me that, where a dispute exists in the real world, one way to address the dispute is to specify who the parties to that dispute are. Which is the mainstream view and which is the minority view? Is it the case that "most Christians accept that Thomas brought Christianity to India and a minority dispute that fact" or is it the case that "a minority assert that Thomas brought Christianity to India while the majority of Christians dispute that fact". In either case, who exactly is this minority? Presumably, Thomasine Christians believe this assertion as, I assume, do some historians. Who are they? Who are the historians who dispute the assertion? Can either side be characterized as "mainstream" or "minority"? --Richard S (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• As for "Apostolic Period" vs. afterwards, what do the historians say? For those who dispute that Thomas arrived in India around 52AD, how do they explain the arrival of Christianity in India? When do they think it arrived there? I am inclined to mention Thomas in the "Apostolic Period" with appropriate caveats that indicate that this narrative is not universally accepted as historical fact. --Richard S (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
• Finally, I would like to note that both of you have used up your three reversions for today. Moreover, WP:3RR does not give you the right to three reversions a day. You could still be blocked for edit warring which you have been doing today (especially considering the previous reverts in past days). Please stop. Resolve the issue here on the talk page and then edit the page accordingly. Further edit warring may lead to protection of the page and/or blocks. --Richard S (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am in favor of placing Saint Thomas Christians under Apostolic Period. The majority does accept that Thomas brought Christianity to India. If there are people disputing the fact then as i suggested we will add the line "It is believed that....". It will be a neutral point of view. I think it is acceptable to all. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Rahuljohnson4u-- There two was to stay NPOV (at least two). One is give statement to both/many/all sides to whatever degree. The 2nd is to just limit statements to thing all sides agree on... a much better way (unless the issue is a major part of the subject of the article, and thus there is room left within the size limit that is not better spent on other facts of the subject.
• There is also no NPOV gained in stating "It is believed that Christianity arrived... via Thomas the Apostle..." because that is not a statment that he came all the way to Indian Malabar Coast in person. It leaves open the view that he may have came East and diciples of his came the Indian Malabar Coast in his name.
• But if it seem to clarify something to you, we can also look at adding in a explainitory footnote on the differening views.
• This is a neutral point of view as it is, because

• the text itself is limited to statements that all sides agree on,
• and while even if you and I agree that Thomas came to southern India himself, the placement of the text here only indicates that some of the events are postapostolic, short of spliting the text into two bits in two part of the article.

• You have claimed "majority does accept that Thomas brought Christianity to India" but I see no reason for this claim. You just seem to "know" it to be the case.
• Richard-- I do not think we have (or need) information of which is the mainstream view and which is the minority view. Such a thing can be hard to measure, but Rahuljohnson4u may be more mainstream, or they may both be about the same. Details on this should be in Saint Thomas Christian tradition but not this article nor in other Christianity in genral articles-- except some detail could work in the new Early centers of Christianity article I made. This article is way overlong.
• I am not sure way the "other side" says but it would seem that have to at least agree that Thomas played some part, per above. I guess some may have a simple "we don't know" view.
• My last three edits were at 02:23 AM, January 6, 2010, 10:04 AM, January 7, 2010, and 3:58 PM, January 7, 2010. Since the 1st two rvts were more than 24 hours apart, it was not 3 a WP:3RR issue quite as you seemed to think.^{Carlaude:Talk} 13:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Carlaude, you may be right about your edits not being a 3RR issue, but an edit war is still an edit war even if it spans several days. In truth, it gives me pause to make edits which I know to be edit warring even if the edits span several weeks or several months. You know when you are reverting somebody else's edits and you should try to engage that other editor in discussion rather than just revert them. Of course, this dictum cuts both ways and it takes two or more editors to engage in an edit war. Bottom line: please don't edit war, it's bad for the project.
• That said, I disagree with you about sticking with mutually agreed on assertions. It seems obvious that we should mention the existence Thomasine Christians and their spiritual heritage via Thomas. At the same time, if some people doubt the tradition of Thomas going to India, we should indicate that as well. If there is not an easily ascertainable "mainstream" position, then why can't we say something "According to the tradition of the Saint Thomas Christians, Christianity came to India via Saint Thomas. Some historians dispute the historicity of this tradition." This makes no assertion as to whether the historicity of the tradition is mainstream or not. It simply states indisputable facts: (1) the Saint Thomas Christians believe Christianity came to India via Thomas. (2) Some historians dispute that. Provide citations for both assertions and you're done. If it's needed, you can expand on the dispute in a Note.
• --Richard S (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• The reason this would be ill-advised (or the main reason), is that this article is already way way over-long. We should be coming up with ways to shorten this article, and adding any important info to the sub- and other related articles-- not making this page even longer. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 21:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • --So you're saying that you oppose the two sentences that I proposed primarily because discussion of Thomasine Christianity is too much detail for this article? In other words, they would be OK for Christianity in the 1st century or History of Christianity in India but it's not important enough to mention in this article? I don't think I agree with you but I also understand that these are judgment calls where reasonable people can differ. --Richard S (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think it should be in the articles: Saint Thomas Christian tradition, Thomas the Apostle, History of Christianity in India (if there were one), and probably Christianity in India, and maybe Deaths of the Twelve Apostles and others.
• As for Christianity in the 1st century, that is a surprisingly long article (too long), for such a new article. This is because so many impotant events happened for Christianity in that century. I expect we should have something in that article on Thomas the Apostle and/or Saint Thomas Christian tradition, but the text in there now is much to long, and I expect a multi-sentence "debate" on the different views should not be in there. Maybe once we see what else is better removed, it would be fine, but even long books on the "History of Christianity" do not normally say much on it.
• Unlike Christianity in the 1st century, this article is about twice the size it ought to be. That means removing half of all the sentences-- so yes we should clearly not put these "two sentences" in what it can be put in other article and removed from this one. Long articles grow mostly a few sentences at a time.^{Carlaude:Talk} 02:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are against adding the two words in the beginning then I think we should move 'Christianity in India' to Apostolic period without any change. It suits better there and not under Post Apostolic Church. It is widely accepted that Christianity spread in India in the first century and it comes under Apostolic Age. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is "widely accepted" then you should no trouble finding and quoting a WP:RS stating that it is "widely accepted" and not just "accepted" by that particular source. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 11:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Which particular source? You will get lots of sources once you search the internet. Just because you are against it doesn't mean that it should be placed under post apostolic church. Only you are arguing for it without any reason. And you are not willing to add the extra two words if needed. Now please stop this.User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter what I think or what you think. Wikipedia reports what WP:RS think. It is your burden to source your facts that you claim.

I don't know why you would be happier to add those two words. They would not be false so much as unnecessary. Even if added, the two words would be no reason to change placement of this section. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 13:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a WP:RS saying Apostle Thomas died in India. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/592851/Saint-Thomas

So no more arguments on this topic. The section has been moved to 'Apostolic Age'. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia uses WP:RSs.

If people... even experts, disagree on something, sources can and do dissagree. Just because one says source says "X," does not make other sources claiming "not X" unreliable. To take something as the "one true source" is POV.

Of course, even if we did know for sure he "died in India," it does not prove he made it all the way to Malabar Coast in the south. -^{Carlaude:Talk} 04:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see the link. It says that St. Thomas died in Madras (near Mylapore) in the South. It is a continuation of the Malabar Coast and there are lots of Saint Thomas Christians and Syrian Churches there. And please understand that a very large majority does believe in the fact that St.Thomas is the founder of the Syrian Churches in India. Almost all the prominant denominations including the Roman Catholic and the Oriental Orthodox Churches accept this. In the period of time we are talking about most of religious history, across most religions, is certainly based on tradition. The foundations of most beliefs in general tend to be tradition. Unfortunately CNN wasn't around back then to chronicle the happenings of the day. There are some people who are skeptical about this. Typically, such arguments are due to a combination of ignorance of history plus post colonial mentality that can creep in. We are talking about a community that existed in Southern India who kept their records in palm leaves. If you look at the evidences there are plenty but u wont get anything similar as you can find in Rome or West. That’s simply because people are different and their culture for maintaining records are different. User:Rahuljohnson4u (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Just too long

• Ugh. I was really going to argue that those two little sentences would provide a good NPOV summary of the controversy. However, if you are going to argue from an "article is too long" position, then, yes, it is arguable that we could drop all mention of Thomasine Christianity from this article. I checked to see if we mention the introduction and later suppression of Catholicism in Japan and I see that we do not. I would think that both stories (Japanese Kirishitans and Thomasine Christianity) would be important to include in this article but I can see arguments for omitting them as well. However, if we do omit them, then there are almost certainly other topics to remove from this article. One that just crossed my radar screen just now is Devshirmeh which I copied here from History of the Orthodox Church some time ago. That is almost certainly less important than Thomasine Christianity and so, if we don't mention Thomasine Christianity, we should not mention "Devshirmeh" either. So, my question to you now is: How do we go about shortening this article? Surely, we will slaughter some "sacred cows" in the process of doing so. Should we just pull out our knives and start hacking away at it, debating specific issues if and when other editors squawk? --Richard S (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Here is my take on it.
• A. When and if you have a time, look at the whole article and use some consitencey to delete spam, moved what is best moved, and split into new article whatever section(s) are suitable (but spiting also requires replacing it with a short summary there-of). It seems best to me to "scrape the surface" of many topics (so they are links) than to cover a few things well, but that is sort of a judgment call. But it takes time and drive to do this...
• B. In the mean time, don't add things to long article without some clear need (and there is rarely a clear need).
• C. Also in the mean time, delete/move/split whatever you run across that seems good to do so. Then WP:BRD as need or want too. This sort of depends on how well you know the subject, how clear the benifit/need of the edit is, and of course how over long the article is, but it is easier to talk about your edit after I have seen it.
• Keep in mind, everyone has more fun adding to articles than removing from them, but we should still edit the long ones down. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Fine... you and I think along the same lines. I have fought the "article too long" battle on other articles and it seems some editors just don't understand that "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" doesn't mean that "anyone can add anything as long as it's sourced". I will get started and we will see how much flak I get. --Richard S (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• I like how long this article is; there is no way that an agry fundamentalist or common nonshelant goof can say this article is not thoroughle enough. This is a terrific article; clear and detailed. --Wolf of mystery (talk)

It's technically too long according to the rule of thumbs for article size, 133 kb when 100 kb is due size to consider splitup, meaning that it will pose problems when loading, reading and editing the article on quite a few web browsers. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Christianity and Worldly Governments

From my general reading of the history Christianity in Rome, the combination of religious and political powers that had been invested in the person of the emperor, under Christianity was separated into two realms. The worldly power, held by the secular apparatus, and the spiritual power held by the ecclesiastical apparatus.

Under the new arrangement, which had fully matured by medieval times, the spiritual powers gave their sanction to the worldly powers. And in turn the worldly powers protected and favored the spiritual powers. It appears to me to be an arrangement that began to develop around the time of Constantine, and didn't start to unravel until the Reformation and the Enlightenment. But it came completely undone in the United States by the disestablishmentarianism in the first clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In general, the relationship of the Christian Church in its various iterations to contemporaneous political sovereignties seems to be little explored, to date, in any of the articles that cover the religion. I'll see what I can reference adequately to be able to contribute along these lines, but thought I'd bring up the subject here in case others want to break open their books. --ô¿ô 00:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why the title "Trinitarian Christianity made the state religion of Rome"

At the time that this decree was promulgated, there was indeed a long simmering dispute within the Church between Arians and Trinitarians. This decree settled that dispute. Therefore, it is only logical that that title be used. Scott P. (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No. It's too long, so it's logical to shorten it. Thanks for the note though. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Christian History

The one thing I noticed in the first paragraph was the statement of Christian History starting at the time of Jesus Birth to present day.....I hope there can be someone who can fill in the gaps pre-Jesus because Christian History predates even the Old Testament and to really comprehensively write about Christian History, these truths about the origins of Christianity and the cultural realities surrounding the time just before the Old Testament are crusial in compiling the complete Christian History.....so if anyone can put in reference material realted to pre-New Testament Christian History that would be great.....

High Hopes!!!

Kenneth R. Livingston

There are other articles for Jewish History, and there are no doubts whatsoever that Judaism is the predecessor of Christianity. This article is about the Christianity as a movement independent from Judaism. There is no way in universe that Christianity preceeded Judaism, such statements are contrafactual and untrue. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Missiŋ Þiŋs

• gnosticism (just a short sentence, no need to bloat the article),
• alleviate russian orthodox church a little (avoiding bloat) as the main orthodox church after the fall of Constantinople

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Spawning idea...

I think that the article, which by far is technically too large (133 kb), should be spawned thusly: from the fall of the West Roman Empire, the Rome Catholic Church becomes organisationally independent from the Head of the Church which is the East Roman emperor, and the Constantinople Catholic Church under the emperor. Therefore the histories of the

• West Catholics (today the Roman Catholic Church) and the
• East Catholics (today the Greek Orthodox Church)

are essentially separate and follow different time schemes. As it is now, the article needs both expansion and shrinking, which must mean something like spawning subarticles. I propose splitting the article into History of the East Orthodox Christianity and History of the Western Christianity, after some preparative edits to make the sections to-be-spawned-off coherent. Ideas, opinions? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong! Forget it. Considering History of medieval Christianity, I must rethink. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The article History of Christianity and History of medieval Christianity contains some duplicate text, that I'm going to rewrite/compress in the former article. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Invoking WP:BOLD (not very much) I'm going to replace the duplicate sections Irish and Irish missionaries, Anglo-Saxons, English, Franks and Frisians of the Low Countries with a shorter reviewing text in this article. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't save very much space. 1h editing shrinked it by 2 kb! 31 kb remaining!! I must rethink again!!!! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) A split at the point of formal separation in the 11century would make more sense in terms of both length and perhaps also content. Despite growing apart, the Churches shared much until the last two centuiries of formal union. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, except a common history. I think 11c is too late. The theological communion matters, but I think the split must be earlier than 11c, but prob centuries later than the "official" fall of the West Roman Empire at 476. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

End of 2nd Paragraph in 'Structure and the episcopacy'

The statement "and in that century, and this structure was supported by teaching on apostolic succession where, a bishop becomes the spiritual successor of the previous bishop in a line tracing back to the apostles themselves" appears to have be carelessly tacked on. It contains grammatical error and provides no citation, and is redundant because the the same subject is treated sufficiently in the following paragraph. Aposl3pol (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Imperial bias

Observation: The section titled Church of the Roman Empire is, by its name alone, very biased. First, it implies that the Christian community was almost entirely ruled by the Romans which is patently false. There was an extremely large Christian communion centered in Persia that stretched into India and other parts of Asia. Additionally the Germanic Churches were independent of the Roman Empire and its churches as well. Even apart from all of that, though, the Roman Imperial Church never even represented all of the Roman Christians. A very large portion of the Roman Christians (perhaps the majority?) belonged to the Oriental Orthodox communion.

I would recommend:

• Retitle the section. Perhaps Christianity in late antiquity.
• Broaden the focus to be more balanced based on the sizes of the Christian communities at that time and their significance during that period.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody is clamoring to respond I took a stab at this. The section still needs a lot of work but the scope is at least broadened a little bit. In particular I added sections on the Nestorian/Persian Church, the Miaphysite churchs, and the Gothic churches, 3 major communions of the era which were not previously given any real focus --Mcorazao (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

James the "successor" of Jesus?

Although he was clearly a leader among the early Christians, I've never heard of such a concept that he was the "successor of Jesus" and I'm sure that certainly among Christians at least, most would object to such a description. In Christianity, Christ has such a central and unique place (being the only begotten Son of God, the unique Redeemer and Savior, even the incarnated God Himself, etc.) that it would be ridiculous to claim any one individual as a "successor."

Unless it can be backed up with some evidence via citations, I say that that phrase should be removed. The Cabbage (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

First sentence is a doozy

"Christianity has impacted all other religions[citation needed] and changed the course of human history."

Hasn't everything that's ever happened changed the course of history!? And, yeah, need MAJOR support for the idea that Christianity has impacted ALL other religions. How about religions that might have existed and disappeared before Christianity existed? These kinds of rhetorical statements do not belong in an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)