Talk:Christology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Core / Jesus / Theology / Calvinism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism (marked as High-importance).
 

Difficulty[edit]

This article will be as hard to write as Christianity because there are so many various christological views.

Christology is important, because Christians who belive in the Trinity . . .

Like I said, hard to write


Nice job, Wesley. If you can flesh it out and make it more substantial, I won't wine about it. I cast my lot with you, if you can bear this cross . . . Ed Poor getting silly, so it's time to sign off.


What this article requires is genuine care by those who have a genuine interest in the subject and particularly by those who have a significant interest in the person of Jesus Himself. The reality is that there are many divergent views and even those who outwardly maintain the majority view have really little idea of the issues are. Therefore, the focus must be an inclusive discussion so that the issues are clearly laid out and well understood. While I find the majority view defective, I am not in the least interested in any way in misrepresenting but would rather represent it as accurately and completely as possible. Frankly, it is only in this light that the actual defects can be manifest.

Secondly, the history is what it is. The earliest history is, of course, shrouded in a fog other than the extant NT texts which are what much of the controversy is about. Regardless, there are many pieces and there is no reason that we cannot assemble an realtively agreed upon history.

Messianic Jews[edit]

"A number of early Christians believed that Jesus was not divine, but was simply the human Messiah promised in the Old Testament. The inclusion of the genealogies of Jesus Christ at Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38 are sometimes explained by this belief. An alternative explanation is that they were in opposition to Gnostic Christian doctrines that Jesus Christ only had the illusion of a human body and, thus, no human ancestry at all. This view was opposed by church leaders such as Paul, and eventually came to be held only by small, marginal sects such as the Ebionites and (according to Jerome) the Nazarenes."

I think the last sentence here should relate to the first sentence and not the one it follows (i.e. the Nazarenes and Ebionites believed Jesus was human and not an illusion). Can someone who knows more reorder / rephrase to make things more clear? DopefishJustin 22:44, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Jesus[edit]

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Expansion[edit]

The last bullet point is only 1 word. Sentence needs to be finished. CheeseDreams 21:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would it be helpful to briefly list some significant dates with the various christologies, try to give a sense of their historical development? Each is fully described in its own article, but this one might help to pull them together. Or, what other questions should the article answer? Wesley 22:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If there are no other suggestions for expanding this article, I'll remove the request for expansion from the top of the article once the VfD is finished.
Since there have been no further specific suggestions for expanding this article, and the vfd is finished, I'm removing the 'request for expansion' tag from the top of the article. If someone can explain what they think the article is lacking, that would probably warrant putting the tag back. Wesley 04:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Undeleting[edit]

I'm "undeleting" this article. It stands on its own and is an important topic in its own right, and should not be merged with another. It should not be a candidate for "speedy deletion." Wesley 07:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It also shouldn't be listed on WP:VFD. I think it deserves a separate article, but at the very least it needs to survive as a redirect. Before anyone makes it a redirect, perhaps we could discuss it here? --G Rutter 17:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


It is essential that this article is left on Wikipedia. This is actually a very dominant part of Christianity and occupies a great deal of the thought and effort of the followers of Jesus Christ. Simply recognizing the first several ecumenical conferences focus being on this subject makes my point clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aner25 (talkcontribs) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ask Topic in Christology[edit]

Is there any topic in Christology on "the life of Jesus", its effect or influence to any society, country, in a broad sense.Roscoe x 09:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe that most discussions of Christology discuss Jesus' effect on humanity as a whole, rather than on any one society or country. The closest you might come is the question of whether he was fully human or not. If not, then his impact on our earthly life would be regarded as negligible; if so, then the theologian would be more likely to say our entire humanity has been "redeemed" or "transformed," including our culture. So a person's christology can have indirect effects on what they think about, say, whether to respect their own body or other people's bodies, and other social issues. Also, those that believe in a future "second coming" of Jesus (see Christian eschatology) would expect him to have a far greater personal influence on the societies and countries of this world when he returns. Wesley 17:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Logos[edit]

Is it possible to have a more comprehensive treatment of the christian meaning of the word Logos in this article. The current article on Logos is pretty poor from a christian standpoint. It would be better to redirect to Logos subsection in here, rather than to a more general article on the word Logos, IMO. --Randolph 01:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Randolph, while part of me agrees with you, I would suggest they be kept seperate. Logos and Christology are distict (abeit closely related) concepts in Christian theology. Further, one comes from biblical theology, the other from postive systematic theology. I do, however, believe they should logically be linked to one another. DaveTroy

Can of Worms[edit]

The statement that the doctrine of original sin is a 'can of worms' is not NPOV! I would recommend reverting the edits of 152.91.9.213 on 16th January 2006 The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidfraser (talk • contribs) .

The section of the article on questions relating to Christ's humanity lacks the objectivity typical of Wikipedia articles. Issues with Christ's humanity are certainly serious. One can argue that this was on of the major issues with Arius. In focusing on Catholics and Calvinists, the article takes a position that is not representative of usual Christian theology. After all, the usual concept of original sin doesn't say that the image of God was abolished, just seriously corrupted. The possibility of being healed is there in human nature, although original sin prevents this possibility from being realized without God's action through Christ. I would hate to see the article deleted. The subject is important. The various potential authors no doubt do not agree. But that doesn't prevent other articles from presenting the major viewpoints responsibly. This one has a bit too visible an axe. I agree that the edits from 152.91.9.213 should be removed. The section title added is a good one, but almost all of the text is bad enough that we'd be better off without it.Hedrick 04:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not _the_ "Messianic Jewish view[edit]

"There is also the Messianic Jewish view that Yeshuwah and YHWH are the same entity, with Ruach haQodesh and 'Elohiym being separate parts of the Godhead. YHWH appears in the TaNaKh, while Yeshuwah is the incarnate form of YHWH found in the Briyth Chadashah. In this view, Yeshuwah is born fully man and becomes fully God upon His baptism by Ruach haQodesh (symbolizing our inclusion into the family of God upon our own baptism with Ruach haQodesh)."

Most modern Messianic's tend to be traditional Trinitarians, although there are some who espouse Oneness, Arianism, or the belief Yeshua/Jesus was only a man. The above position is not the majority view and should not be presented as such. In my estimation the above position is a kabalistic-sacred name-messianic variant and cannot categorically be associated with Jewish-Christian Messianism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.67.117.180 (talkcontribs) .


POV[edit]

Take a look at this--Striver 17:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Support--Striver 19:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has a definite point of view. I am surprised it was not deleted. I am assuming that the writer comes from a Reformed Christian background. If I am incorrect, the very fact that I feel I know the author's background is significant. I doubt if Encyclopedia Brittanica would read the way this does. A neutral article would be great. Perhaps we need a non-Christian to write it.75Janice 04:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)75Janice 20 January 2007


The section on "Resurrection" in particular seems to end on a POV note:

"It is doubtful that they intentionally fabricated a resurrection story. Not only were they putting their lives in danger, but the concept of resurrection was only understood by Jews in the context of a resurrection for Israel as a whole at the end of the world. An individual’s resurrection was not a Jewish teaching.[14] How did this scared group instantly change into a “dedicated missionary troop?”[15] Jesus’ resurrection changed these men who in turn began to change the world." 134.82.97.14 02:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Section on Controversies concerning attibution or denial of Christ's human nature[edit]

4th para. "It could be argued..." (sic)) is ripe for deletion wout citation as unverifiable & POV according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.

From 8th para. on: tendentious style ("would argue.."), lack of balance, & lack of citation look like POV or OR, ripe for deletion according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.

These questions have been thoroughly aired historically. Wiki requires Wikipedia:Verifiability. Thomasmeeks 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, the whole section starting at "It could also be argued ..." sounds very moch like POV (or, at best, OR). I left it when I wrote, not wanting to change too much in the article at one time, but would support its removal. Pastordavid 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the section in question, as POV or OR. Pastordavid 07:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-Write[edit]

I have re-written portions of thie article, with two purposes in mind. (1) Clarifying the distinction between Trinitarian debates (theological concepts having to do with how the persons of the Trinity relate to one another) and Christological debates (theological concepts dealing with how the divine and human relate in the person of Jesus); and (2) making the article more accessible to those with no background.

I have attempted to retain all content that was here before (even if it was re-arranged). My re-write focused on the first half of the article, the second half still needs some work. Pastordavid 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Section: Christological views reflected in names and titles of Jesus[edit]

Most of this section seems to belong in Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament, the rest in Christogram. If there are no pressing reasons for them to be duplicated here, I will remove those sections. Pastordavid 07:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Information not on Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament transferred there, the rest removed. Pastordavid 10:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed Links[edit]

Rather than simply remove questionable links, I thought that as they are removed, people could place them here for discussion and consensus. Pastordavid 20:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

High Christology slant?[edit]

I note that major references are to Donald Macleod, who I believe finds, contrary to the consensus of most biblical scholars, that there is considerable evidence for Christ's pre-existence in the synoptic gospels. Does this exaggerate the evidence for a high Christology? Jim Lacey 15:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Christology after the holocaust?[edit]

I think there should be at least a blurb about how Christology can be perceived as anti-Judaic, and how some scholars are calling for its current form to be revised —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwestbrook (talkcontribs) 02:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Christological relativism[edit]

I think there ough to be room in the christology series to discuss the phenomenon of “christological relativism”, sometimes refered to as “christological pluralism”. This phenomenon, which dates back to the 18th century Enlightenment, posits that the exclusivity of Christ's salvation is difficult to accept and that there can be multiple “saviours” according to each major religious culture or historical narrative. In this view, the economy of salvation of Jesus Christ would be equally fulfilled in Buddha, Guru Nanak, Moses, Muhammad, Vishnu or any other type of saviour figure. This controversial christology, if it is really a christology, was a the heart of recent Church condemnations on the writings of pluralist theologians Roger Haight and Jacques Dupuis. ADM (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dating of the word[edit]

It would be useful if the article could find out when the word christology was first used and what author first used it. It seems like a fairly ancient word and it may have an ancient Greek background arising from theological debates that emerged from the council of Nicea. ADM (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Feminist christology[edit]

Certain scholars have coined the term feminist christology to describe a thought current within feminist theology which specializes in the field of christology. This could perhaps be mentioned as part of a section on recent schools of thought in of christology. [1] [2] ADM (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

B class?[edit]

I do not feel comfortable with this article having a B class. As far as I can see, it needs much work to have a better flow and presentation. Overall, much of the material here may belong in other pages and is repetitive. And the extra text gets in the way of the key item the article does not manage to deliver: a concise presentation of Christology upfront in a way that a new reader can feel like reading. Not being an expert on the topic, I would like to ask: who is the expert here? How should it be improved? As is, I hesitate to start to read this long article, with no clear roadmap upfront. It looks like a lot of independent sections, all looking for cohesion from somewhere, but said cohesion is just not there. History2007 (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yahshua-Yahshuah[edit]

See Talk:Yahshua#Merge regarding a proposal to merge the articles Yahshuah and Yahshua. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ascension?[edit]

"There have been and are various perspectives by those who claim to be his followers since the church began after his ascension." - I am having trouble regarding this "ascension" statement as NPOV. I should know better than to challenge this since religious articles are so difficult. But in line of maintaining an encyclopedic voice, I think the "his ascension" should be removed, and the sentence reworked, that is put: "after his death", or something like "after his proclaimed ascension by his followers" or something more neutral and accurate. This is an encyclopedic article, not an essay. Efiiamagus (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes of consensus reached material by Willfults.[edit]

This article is B-rated article in Wikipedia, and has been tagged as Top-importance by the Christianity Project, it is also watched and supported by many interest groups and project in Wikipedia; it has been expert and peer reviewed to reach that status (B-class). So almost all of it IS consensus reached material that has been long standing here.

Your recent changes to this article Christology, are mostly apologetic in nature and cite the source of amazingfacts.com (which in the past you have been questioned from using as a NPOV reference), you have no sources cited outside of the bible. Your editing of the article add material which is clearly “original research” WP:NOR Also you made major changes of material in the article and explained them as “adding references” or “tagging” section when in fact it was a major copy-edit of the article. You may add your references if they refer to Christology as a hermeneutical principle, not the view of some church (by your added material I see that you are of the Adventist sect). If you can present proof of your claims outside of Bible sources, it will be welcomed. Your changes are not a NPOV, nor are any sources cited outside of the bible.

So I am reverting them again if you want to constructively add to the article go ahead but please don’t remove consensus reached material (that material went unchallenged way before you edited) so it is as per Wikipedia policy a consensus reached material. If you are not supportive of the claims made in the article, then a simple "unsourced" tag will do. And you, as per policy, will have to bear burden of proof, to the contrary.

I will not enter a editing war with you. I will revert them again; as your sources are Bible sources... not any expert/scholar published source... If you wish you can take this further, and put it up for mediation… Until then, I will boldly reverse any claims or changes that are not contributory to the encyclopedic knowledge of the article. Efiiamagus (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"you have no sources cited outside of the bible" The books Desire of Ages, Christ's Human Nature, Bible Commentary Volume 7 are three outside the Bible references in the changes made. It's not OR. Willfults (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Willfults. As I said earlier "Your changes are not a NPOV, nor are any sources cited outside of the bible." Maybe it was unclear; I was referring there, to the sources you gave of EGW and the site of amazingfacts, these are not a NPOV. The book you cited are books for Ellen G. White and Joe Crew (WP:UNDUEWEIGHT). Have in mind that this article is on Christology. The scope of this article is to present the different views on the subject of Christology. You are citing material in POV, by the voice of EGW and Joe Crew. And make conclusions (definitive conclusions) in topics of original sin and the human nature of christ; you are presenting them as definite prove in a proselytizing manner "Many Christians state that sin is willful transgression of God's law. Sin is a choice. Such base their belief on texts such as "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)". This is beyond the scope of this article. I see no reason to remove the other material.
My problem with the earlier changes is that you tagged the changes as "adding refs", but they were not. As per policy you need to first open a discussion section in the page of the article, for major removals of material (as you did), you changed at least 2 sections and removed material that was contributory to the proposed expansion of the article, with no reasons given. Now the reason is the material was "unreferenced", when you want to challenge material such as that, there are specifically made tags in Wikipedia for it, the "citation needed" tag, or the "references needed". To simply remove material we do not agree with, will not do, since a lot of the material in the Wikipedia is not specifically cited nor referenced sentence by sentence. Reasons for major changes need to be given. There is a huge reference section for this article at the end, and most of the material of it comes from those sources. You still persist on removing the information. You can add the information you want to the article but please don’t remove the material it originally had (read WP:PRESERVE). The section is now referenced (not cited).Efiiamagus (talk) 00:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

How is Joe Crews a "scholar"?[edit]

I will like you to clarify why or how is Joe Crews a "scholar"? Efiiamagus (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please explain this...[edit]

I found this on other article in wikipedia Desmond Ford #Original Sin.

(Quote of article section starts here)

According to Anglican Geoffrey Paxton, during the 1960s scholars such as Ford and Edward Heppenstall embedded the concept of original sin into Seventh-day Adventist theology|Adventist theology. Early Adventists (such as George Storrs, Ellen White and Uriah Smith) tended to de-emphasise the corrupt nature inherited from Adam, while stressing the importance of actual, personal sins committed by the individual. They thought of the "sinful nature" in terms of physical mortality rather than moral depravity. Adventist Joe Crews states...

There is a very important difference between the inclination to sin and the guilt of sin, and it is that small degree of difference that has triggered a series of other doctrinal errors. Said the prophet, "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Many Adventists state that sin is willful transgression of God's law. Sin is a choice. Such base their belief on texts such as "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4). Such is not the belief of some Progressive Adventists who believe in original sin.

(Quote of article section ends here)

I urge you to explain your motives... This is almost the exact same quote you used; but edited in convenience of your views. Why are you editing material on other articles and reposting here in this article? Efiiamagus (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Half Adam?[edit]

This source you cite is not an acceptable one; it is a sermon from a pastor. It's an opinion and not scholarly research (see WP:SOURCES to read what is acceptable sources), it is also self published (WP:SPS).

Presenter: Larry Kirkpatrick

Location: Mentone Seventh-day Adventist Church, CA, USA

Delivery: 2008-11-22 01:30Z

Publication: GreatControversy.org 2009-08-07 21:58Z

Type: Sermon

I am not removing it now but due to the obvious religious leaning of your material I will remove it more sooner than later. I kindfully remind you that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered."

You should add things concerning the topic of christology if you have any. The material you added, adds nothing to the scope of the article. If you want inclusion, you can define the Adventist christology in detail.

Thank you. Efiiamagus (talk) 11:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources verification request for references added to section Person of Christ > Harmonization > Types of amalgamation (verify)[edit]

The following references where added for a challenged (long standing consensus reached material) in the mentioned section of this article. Please feel free to verify.

  1. Placher, William (1983). A History of Christian Theology: An Introduction. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. ISBN 0-664-244963.
  2. Matera, Frank J. New Testament Christology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999. ISBN 0-664-25694-5
  3. McIntyre, John. The shape of Christology: studies in the doctrine of the person of Christ 2nd edn, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998; 1st edn, London: SCM, 1966.
  4. MacLeod, Donald. The Person Of Christ: Contours of Christian Theology. Downer Grove: IVP. 1998, ISBN 0-8308-1537-6

This references should suffice for the previously reached material, some of the sources have been already use in the article (or related articles in internal links). Please verify. Efiiamagus (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Efiiamagus, but I can't verify the sentences they are referencing w/out page #s. I undid your change BUT you are welcome to add back in any cited material you have to the article as long as it is verifiable. Perhaps we can have both your content and mine in? Not trying to start an edit war here. I think a compromise may work. Perhaps both may fit, as long as both meets wikipedia policy of being WP:RS. Let me know, thanks! :) Willfults (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. I see no problem, in contributing to the article as expansions. You will need to verify the sources, in order to challenge it. I will add the removed material, please add the material you want (and we will reach a consensus on it, but don't remove the whole sections to do it, add your section, and we will discuss it. I will also urge you to read carefully the policy WP:RS, the references I added are in accordance to policy and meet the standard of policy since the document, author and publisher are included and they are reliable. (The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times or Cambridge University Press). The references you presented are doubtful, since Joe Crew and EGW book are not "peer reviewed" and are "self-published" (WP:SPS), since they are not scholarly publications and as such are not independent (WP:IS) and do meet WP:RS. I will refer you to these other policies WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCES. I will also like to make clear that the material is cited although it wasn’t specifically referenced. Optimally pages should be in references although this is not criteria enough to say it is not referenced or cited. If you check most of the articles here have references without pages.
A citation tells the readers where the information came from. In the article, you cite or refer to the source of information.
  • Citations: When you cite the source of information in the report, you give the names of the authors and the date.
A reference gives the readers details about the source, so that they have a good understanding of what kind of source it is and could find the source themselves if necessary. The references are typically listed at the end of the report.
  • References: The sources are listed at the end of the article according to the last name of the first author.
As you see there is a difference between a citation and a reference, the citation is in the paragraphs per se, although it is not linked to any references. Optimally citation and references should be tied together but sometimes it is not possible. And if every material and sentence would be cited and referenced the visual clutter would be disruptive.
Thank you. Efiiamagus (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Current discussion Oct 2010[edit]

I have looked at the current discussion and my view is that Efiiamagus is generally correct and is showing a lot of patience in the face of clearly unsupported edits. This is most probably not a B-rated article and needs fixes, but adding unsupported claims from a pastor in a Church somewhere is not helping. This must stop so real improvements can take place. Please consider this an outside, unsolicited, 3rd opinion that sides with Efiiamagus. History2007 (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Christology#Christ's Human Nature.[edit]

Christology#Christ's Human Nature, section removed, this kind of sources are not NPOV and are WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, they are not even reliable sources, for reasons I already stated in the discussion so I am removing the whole section. The scope of the article is not to give weight to any type of Christology, just to give information on the types and historical controversies if any. I fail to see why the section is relevant in view of encyclopedic knowledge and academical studies. Efiiamagus (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding multiple OR tags and such (by Willfults)[edit]

Hello Will. I appreciate the recent concern of the article but we already have discussed why in Wikipedia, we can’t cite and reference every other section or sentence; it is impossible. You gave no reason why you think those sections are OR (they are not), please see the internal link from the main article on those section if you want to view the references and citations. I have assumed good faith before and I will partially assume it now; but frankly I start to see your tactics as trying to game the system, for things you don’t agree with, based on Adventist Theology. If you want those section removed or improved, please start a new section here on how can those section be improved, and we will discuss it. You can’t just spam tags hoping that one will stick. Thank you.Efiiamagus (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Efiiamagus, I agree that the many tags today were going overboard. However, no tags is taking it too easy. The article needs work, and I am doing other things now, so can not participate right now - although I will do later. But the way to deal with tags (justified or not) is to add some references anyway. It takes work, but talk page time is mostly wasted, so adding refs may be a good option too. But I do think there were too many of them all of sudden. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello His'07! I already referenced 3 sections in the past. I think there are many ways to contribute constructively, instead of just tagging something hoping for no one to care, and then remove the sections. The sections are nevertheless referenced in the main articles, under the divisions. I can only do so much. But thank you.Efiiamagus (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes unreasonable complaints lead to improvements. Has happened before... History2007 (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I tagged each section where I think it needs improvement so everyone knows. I didn't go around removing a bunch of stuff. I couldn't find a reference in any of the main articles that they point to either. Thus the tags.
Regarding my earlier changes, all I did was copy and paste a few sections from another article, replacing some sections that had no references. Efiiamagus reverted all my stuff as he didn't agree with it and adding a few refs for the previous sections. I concluded the matter by leaving Efiiamagus' changes as is. Willfults (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Look guys, can the 3 of us we try and "add references" within the next 10 days instead of playing Rugby on the talk page? After that let us review. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 100% agreed (for me at least) that is my point. Again I didn't remove a character of text, saw your comments regarding too many tags, so I put two tags at the top. Hope that doesn't make anyone angry. Willfults (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok. History2007 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. Yes, lets try that. Efiiamagus (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Review of article[edit]

I am beginning to try to review and make sense of what there is in this article. It seems that the very first thing we need to do is decide if the image that represents the tree of beliefs is accurate, so do you guys think File:Scisms and their Councils.PNG is correct and accurate? It is a personal work by AnthonyonStilts. I had seen edits by him before and they seemed reasonable, but this image still has no other source and needs to be verified. I will start to review it, but your comments will be appreciated. If it is to remain in the article the article contents need to match it. In fact, if it remains, it will dictate the structure of the early sections. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Morning History. Nice to see you. The article starts out by explaining the nature and study of Christology
Christology (from Christ and Greek -λογία, -logia) is the field of study within Christian theology which is primarily concerned with the nature and person of Jesus Christ. Primary considerations include the relationship of Jesus' nature and person with the nature and person of God. As such, Christology is generally less concerned with the details of Jesus' life (what he did) or teaching than with who or what he is. There have been and are various perspectives by those who claim to be his followers since the church began. The controversies ultimately focused on whether and how a human nature and a divine nature can co-exist in one person. The study of the inter-relationship of these two natures is one of the preoccupations of the majority tradition.
Some essential sub-topics within the field of Christology include:
  • The incarnation,
  • The resurrection,
  • The salvific work of Jesus (known as soteriology).
That is the lead in this article and that is what needs to dictate its structure. There must be many other publications along these lines! Alan347 (talk) 09:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is the lead, but I meant that the diagram still needs to be "verified" because we have no source for it. A user just drew it. And the diagram needs to match the history section. I have not got to the diagram yet. If you know the history of the councils well, please check the diagram.
But I have been working on this in a systematic way, I just built the page Areopagus sermon as a result of looking at this article which I will work into the early history, etc. I think the article does need much work, and it is fun doing it, but will take some time. The issue of the Christological approaches of the Synoptics vs John vs Paul etc. needs to be added.
The lead needs to reflect the contents, and once the content has been fixed, we can retouch the lead. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Synoptic Christological approach[edit]

  • Ontologic (Jesus in himself): Jesus' radical descent (incarnation) and his radical ascent into heaven show that Jesus came from God and went back to God.
  • Soteriologic (Jesus for us): Through discipleship with Jesus, the person is offered the gift of resurrection into life with God (ref) Matt 10, 39 (ref). Jesus has the power to forgive sins, to make miracles of healing and to raise from the dead.

Johnine Christological approach[edit]

  • ontologic: Jesus was with God in the beginning and was God. It is through him that all things came into being. He is the life and the light of man that shines in the darkness. (ref) JN 1, 1-5 (ref)
  • Soteriologic: Jesus became flesh and came into the world. Those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God. To those who believed in his name who were born not from human stock or human desire or human will but from God himself. (ref) JN 1, 10-13 (ref) The disciples of Jesus are sometimes described as 'sheep' in the Gospel according to John. These sheep listen to his voice and follow him and are given eternal life so that they will never be lost. (ref) JN 10, 27 (ref)

Alan347 (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Precisely at the start of the Gospel according to John, we find an important Christological approach pertaining to both who Jesus is and his works. Alan347 (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Pauline Christological approach[edit]

  • Soteriologic: Paul captures the main Christological theme of discipleship with Jesus as a sharing in his life, death and resurrection. So that by association with Jesus, we are become participants in his death to sin, and resurrection into the life of Glory. (ref) Gal 3, 27; Rom 6,5; 8 (ref). Jesus as the new Adam explains the effect of Jesus' deliverance from sin and the law of death to all humankind. (ref) Rom 3; 5, 12- 21 (ref) Hence the necessity of faith for salvation that can only be achieved by believing in the one who makes salvation possible. (ref) Rom 3; 4 conf 2 (ref)
Alan, most of the information you have is "technically correct" but by now is too long for this article, and is as much a summary of the Bible as about the Christology. Please see Cath encyclopedia as well about the divinity approach in John vs the works approach in the synoptics. If what you have is summarized and gets more non-primary source references then we have a good section on the Biblical Christology. Then the issue of the diagram and years 300-700 still remains. History2007 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
refer to above summery. Alan347 (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings Alan. Just a suggestion, don’t use the ref template on talk pages. The section keeps drifting to the bottom of the page; use direct reference citation in talk pages, is better. Thank you. Efiiamagus (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Post-Apostolic controversies[edit]

I have just started to work on this article, and I think the long controversies section upfront is making the key issues obscure. As the notes from Alan above show, there is absolute need for the discussion of Pauline/etc. approaches, and the controversies have their own articles anyway. It would be best to consolidate those, and add MUCH needed material that is missing in this article. As is I think the B-rating is really a D, and needs much expansion. I will do that in the next 7-10 days now that I have got going on it. There are many references, and amazingly the name Aquinas does not even appear in this article! That must change. History2007 (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to dispute the following line: "For example, Arianism and Ebionism argued that Jesus was an ordinary mortal". That was true of the Ebionites, but generally not of the Arians. They believed that Jesus was more than just a normal mortal man. They just didn't believe that he was God. Arius and his followers were not Adoptionists, as we use the term today. See Wikipedia's own page on Arianism for more on this. Unless someone gives me a good reason not to, after a period of discussion here, I'd like to do a minor edit to change that lineDesScorp (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was lumping them together, but not any more. History2007 (talk) 05:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Christology#Council of Ephesus[edit]

In Christology#Council of Ephesus, ip user 75.15.202.151, wrote:

The Council of Ephesus debated Dyophysitism versus Monophysitism versus Miaphysitism versus Nestorianism. The council adopted Dyophysitism (literally two natures) while the Oriental Orthodox reject this and subsequent councils and consider themselves to be Miaphysite.

I am not an expert here. But the doesn't the Orthodox Church accepted the first 3 councils and rejected Chalcedon? Can someone verify? I am pretty sure that Dyophysitism was adopted in First Chalcedon and not First Ephesus. I am absolutely sure that the First Ephesus council was called by insistence of Nestorius, so I am not sure if the debate was [Dyophysitism versus Monophysitism versus Miaphysitism versus Nestorianism]. I am also absolutely sure that Miaphysitism is a branch of Monophytism. Since Orthodox say they are Miaphysites not Monophysites, and the church accused them of Monophysitism a view that branched from Nestorianism. So I think that sentence is misleading at best. Efiiamagus (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I am going through the article section by section and will reference check and fix all sections systematically. I have not reached that section yet, since Apostolic Christology needs to be done first, then the Post-Apostolics, etc. The Chalcedon incident happened 2,000 years ago, 3 more days will not matter. History2007 (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello His'07... yes… I wasn't implying that it had to be done now... "Patience is after all a great virtue"… I would have done it myself but you know that section has been problematic lately (I can’t figure yet why). Thanks mate! Efiiamagus (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I have now checked every single statement in the sections up to and including the Post-Apostolic section and added references, often with direct links. There is no WP:OR there any more, and in fact there was not much before anyway - just lacked organization. However, the Main articles pointed to, e.g. Council of Chalcedon are in hopeless shape - hard to read and hard to fix. I will not touch those. I ended up writing two new sections here as well, but the rest below that need clean up - again not because they have huge errors, but because they are too scattered. But there is NOTHING about the Middle Ages. This article can not miss Aquinas. I will add that as I go along. History2007 (talk) 22:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Great job mate... I will not be around Wikipedia for some weeks... You are certainly more versed in these topics than I am… I will, once I am back; review it and try to help you a bit… Take care… Efiiamagus (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I think by the time you come back I will have fully checked all of this article. What needs help i sthe list of the Main articles, e.g. First Council of Ephesus, Council of Chalcedon, Chalcedonian Christianity, etc. There are missing facts, e.g., that the First Council of Ephesus was NOT held due to Christological problems with Nestorious, but because of Mariological problems that then extended to Christology! The initial debate was about the Titles of Mary and that was partly why they held it in the Church of Mary to make a point. Then when they started to metaphorically beat Nestorious up, they started to beat him up on Christology too, and his eventual ex-communication was due to Marian differences. Anyway, Council of Chalcedon has even more problems, and if you want to fix things, that would be a good place to start. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Certainly, I will try to help, or at least to get the attention of some experts. Since I always thought that Celestine ordered the Ephesus Council because of Nestorius. Anyhow if I change something or challenge something, as usual I will give references. I will try to stay with the science and medicine articles after this. :) Anyways, have fun mate! Be back after Thanksgiving. Efiiamagus (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that you asked, this is the way it happened:

Nestorius was a great speaker from Antioch. Based on that he was appointed to Constantinople in April 428. He had a priest from Antioch loyal to him called Anastasius who was against the use of the title Theotokos. Nestorius came out to preach in defense of Anastasius out of loyalty and against Theotokos as a title.

During the celebration of the feast of Mary, Proclus was preaching in Constantinople and he claimed Mary as Theotokos. Nestorius got up from his seat and went to the pulpit to contradict Proclus to say that Mary could not be the Theotokos because Jesus was born as a human. That was the beginning of the nightmares of Nestorius and many denominations.

The news spread throughout the Mediteraenean and Celestine I who was pope then wrote about it to Cyril of Alexandria who was against Nestorius from before. Celestine was already angry with Nestorius because Nestorius had given refuge to undesirable priests and also preached against royal excesses, etc. Cyril orchesterated the council of Ephesus in 431, presumably with Celestine's backing, and he also intimidated and excluded some of the supporters of Nestorius. In Ephesus in 431, Nestorius got himself into even more trouble by trying to justify that there must be two people: the human Jesus and the Divine Jesus. And that planted the seeds of the schisms. Nestorius was excommunicated in 431 but in the 19th century a book by Nestorius was discovered, in which he argued 20 years later that the Council of Chaldeaon supported him after all.

In any case, the seed of the schisms were planted when Nestorius decided to support his loyal priest Anastasius and to continue to dig in and defend the views just because he was an eloquent speaker. Go tell that to all the fragmented churches..... History2007 (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Introduction is ahistorical and biased toward the Western churches[edit]

Hi, I just read this article for the first time. I was shocked to see nothing of the Eastern Fathers nor early Eastern councils cited in the introduction, and the high role given to Thomas Aquinas. From a history of theology perspective this is ludicrous. As the body of the article accurately indicates, all the bones of the christological consensus were worked out in the early councils, before the Western church even got on its feet, theologically. I would like to suggest that we edit away Aquinas and introduce at least the Council of Chalcedon there.Jytdog (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly some more discussion can be added about Eastern/Chalcedon issues, but that does not warrant the execution of Aquinas for millions of people continue to read him, and by WP:LEAD given that he is mentioned several times in the body, the lede needs to mention him.. Please feel free to add a section called "Christology of the Eastern Church" which adds material that you think is missing, with suitable WP:RS references. Then we can summarize that section in the lede. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
As I indicated, the discussion is already there. I do not deny the importance of Aquinas generally, especially for Roman Catholics. (The article in general is very heavy on Roman Catholic POV; there is just too much of it here for a general purpose article.) However the body of the article provides no support for the statement that Aquinas "provided the first systematic Christology that consistently resolved a number of the existing issues" -- that claim is indeed just repeated in the body with no elaboration and therefore neither the claim nor Aquinas warrants such prominence in the intro at this time.

I would edit the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of intro as follows: ---

As the Bible does not present a systematic theology, there was fierce and often politicized debate in the early churches on many interrelated issues. Christology was a major focus of these debates, and was addressed at every one of early ecumenical councils, with the Council of Chalcedon in 451 reaching a consensus that is still widely held today. These debates continue in the contemporary era, as Christians have responded to changing times with new theologies such as various liberation theologies, various postmodern theologies, and the theologies of the various approaches to Fundamentalist Christianity.

In addition to theological issues, per se, believers have taken various approaches to Jesus, ranging from an emphasis of worshiping as Lord to more emotional relationships of love and protection. As per the maxim Lex orandi, lex credendi theologians have followed with Christologies that have incorporated these emphases. --- I think the last paragraph citing Karl Rahner should be also deleted as it adds nothing to the introduction. Jytdog (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the material you suggest does not appear as such in the body - so per WP:LEAD you need to add the modern ones to the body first, then we can summarize it. And of course WP:RS needs to be followed. Overall, I see no "errors" in what you wrote, but I do not think the lede can be a standalone novelty, and must only summarize the article.
A more important axiom: In Wikipedia, do not sweat the lede. An IP can come out of no where and change it in 3 weeks, and all the long debate will have been wasted. Wiki-ledes change pretty often. I remember one article over a year ago where every single word in the intro was debated to death among 3 editors. After an agreement was eventually reached, it was stable for 3 to 4 weeks. Then the content was changed and the intro had to change. Now the intro has been totally rewritten. So do not sweat the lede. History2007 (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is not to be sweated then you should have no objection to changing it... (?) But I hear you on adding the contemporary stuff to the body before adding it in the lede.

Additionally, I was surprised that the first paragraph does not mention "tradition" as a source of theology. Especially with respect to issues of Mary and the birth of Jesus, which are important in some Christologies, much of the theology there is driven by tradition rather than what the Bible says, which is sparse. I think we should add "and oral tradition or the like to the first paragraph. Jytdog (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I never sweat the lede. But remember that theology is not the same as Christology. The point, however, that is obvious is that much of Christology is/was post biblical, so I do not know what the big deal is. Anyway, please write a section on modern items, then we go from there and do it all at once. The current "timeline" ends with Reformation. I had been planning to extend the time line among 1,000 other things, but had not gotten to it. So if you extend beyond Luther (which is the last item there) in a new section called Beyond Reformation, or the modern era etc. etc. then that should cover the new items. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what you mean by "theology is not the same as Christology". Christology is clearly a subset of theology, like cardiology is within medicine. So..what do you mean? Jytdog (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant. Christology is as distinct from theology as cardiology is from medicine. One can not discuss Christology simply as "theology" just as one can not discuss cardiology simply as "medical science". Hence statements about Christology may not always apply to theology just as statements about cardiology may not always apply to "medical science". I think these issues are formally discussed in ontology of knowledge if you are interested. The concepts are well understood by those engaged in those fields, so there is no need to repeat them here. History2007 (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh man I just discovered that there is a whole other article called Christian views of Jesus. We have two articles on the same topic! Or maybe they are different to you -- maybe this relates to your statement above... I think I am going to propose a merger. Jytdog (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Christology and Christian views on Jesus are absolutely (and I mean absolutely) not the "same topic" by any stretch of the imagination. I am sorry, but I would suggest some further study of the topic of "Christology" in its own right. There is book, after book, after book on the notable and distinct topic of "Christology" in its own right. Christian views on Jesus relate to "Jesus" not to Christ, and may persist independently of the equation: "Jesus = Christ". Some of those views may at times include elements of Christology, which is a theological issue, but often involve devotional and historical issues which are not part of the theological discipline of Christology. The Christian views on Jesus thus have to deal with issues such as the historical Jesus, the Ministry of Jesus, the life of Jesus, devotions to Jesus, Parables of Jesus, Miracles of Jesus, etc. and are distinct from Christology - a notable theological topic in its own right. Again, please do accept my apologies, but I would suggest much further study of the topic of Christology in its own right. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

History2007 you are trying to claim way too much authority over this page. This is problematic. Additionally you should not assume that your POV is the only true one and that others are ignorant. I have an MDiv; I studied theology and still do. Let's dialogue. Jytdog (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I make no such claims at all. Not at all. Actually, just above I invited you to write a new section to extend the time line. I am still waiting. I only started to cleanup this page some time ago, if you read the talk page, because it was in a mess. So that statement is not accurate. However, I do stand by my assertion about Christology and theology. And please do have WP:RS references for changes you make and do not remove referenced text at will. Thanks. And I am again inviting you to write a new section to extend the time line beyond the Reformation as above. That would help. History2007 (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I grant you that views of Jesus in Christianity can be a separate article from Christology. I will not propose a merger. But back to the earlier statement you made "Hence statements about Christology may not always apply to theology just as statements about cardiology may not always apply to "medical science"" -- this is faulty logic. Cardiology is a subset of medicine -- completely encompassed within it. You cannot say anything about cardiology without talking medicine. You can say things about medicine without discussing cardiology, but not the other way around. Hence.. nothing in Christology falls outside theology as it is a subset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talkcontribs) 13:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyone can "suggest a merger" any time anywhere. The question will be if the merger will succeed, based on its logic. That merger would have failed, as it seems to have become clear now. You can still suggest it, but I think we know it will fail.
Now, onto the "logic of subsumption", boy that reminds me of things from decades ago. It is a simple issue, and I am sorry but your logic is absolutely not valid, and the reverse is true. If you do a Google search like this, you will get some scholarly write-ups on that. So If P is a subset of Q, there are statements about members of P that may not be true about Q. Here we have structures, rather than "sets" so the situation is even more absolute. So cats are mammals, there are statements about cats which are not true about all mammals. Is that clear? The logic of subsumption works the other way around, not the way you stated it. History2007 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

merger thing is a dead horse; why are you beating it?

On the logic discussion, this is getting silly. I don't think either of disagree that christology is a subset of theology; let's leave it there. All this stemmed b/c I wanted to include "tradition" as a source of Christology and slipped and said "theology." To get to the point, do you disagree that tradition is a source for christology?Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Apostolic Christology and John 21:25[edit]

Well, regarding this edit, I think it is going to be an interesting, peripheral and waste of time discussion, but here we go:

In general, that first paragraph came from the first pages of Gerald O'Collins, "Christology: a biblical, historical, and systematic study, 2009 Oxford Univ Press". The actual words were modified a few times. Not that I remember the details of each modification. But O'Collins starts his book by asking: "How do we know who Jesus was and what he did?" That is why that paragraph is there, because that is a natural question he asked in his book on Christology. And that is a good book. I recommend a reading of it.

1. On Page 2 O'Collins says in exact words: "he left no letters or personal documents", and he says in the next sentence: "Jesus did not bequeath to his followers any written instructions". Is this clear, or do we need further clarification of this obvious and well known fact. The text already has O'Collins as a reference. So why should there be any further flag on this? No need to debate or discuss that.
2. In the middle of page 2 O'Collins says in exact words: "To transcribe adequately the story of Jesus is an impossible dream. As John's Gospel observed, there are also many other things which Jesus did.... the boosk that would be written (John 21:25)". So O'Collins directly refers to John 21:25 and includes that statement. So why is there a need for a flag on that, or a further reference on that. There is not. And given that it appears on the first page (he starts his discussion on page 2) of a book on Christology it is relevant. So that is obviously a relevant and referenced item. To be 130% sure, here is another reference: Hans Schwarz's book called "Christology" and published in 1998 also includes that discussion on John 21:25 on page 334. And Schwarz actually says in exact words: "Yet, a Christology can never be finished. As teh Gospel of John concludes: 'But there are so many other...would be written (John 21:25)". So Schwarz also directly refers to John 21:25. So clearly, clearly John 21:25 is used by people who write books on Christology. Is that clear?
3. The question of who wrote the New Testament and how do we know about the "historical Jesus" is a long discussion and there are several, I mean several Wikipedia articles on that. What is certain is that the discussion of "Christology" in this article need not repeat the unending debate about historical Jesus.try this search and you will see the top 3 Wiki-articles on Google. That issue has been debated to death elsewhere. I see no reason to repeat those discussions here, for this is an article on the theological/christological issues, not on the historicity.

I think all that needs to be said there is that the Christology of the Apostolic Age is based on "early Christian documents" and we can leave it there, and move on to waste time elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

happy! Jytdog (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I meant the documents part. By Wikipedia policies, you can just delete referenced text and declare "happy" with no reasoning. The first part still needs to be added back. You must remember that your "I maintain this deletion" statement is against Wikipolicy, because per WP:STATUSQUO the John 21:25 statement needs to be added back. I will issue a warning on your talk page, as a formality. It is best that you restore that yourself, so we will not start a revert cycle / edit war on it, per your insistence to "maintain" deletions. History2007 (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

HI. I warned you back. (Also you keep making efforts to this work being a "waste of time". Please help me understand the significance of this to editing the article, and how this is civil discourse. For what it is worth, if you do judge that something is a waste of your time, I do encourage you to find better ways to use your time - Life is short.)

OK here is the sentence: "The Gospels provide episodes from the life of Jesus and some of his works, but John 21:25 states that even the whole world would not have room for the books that could be written about the works of Jesus.[1]" 1) The first half of it is obvious and does not need stating (Although to correct misapprehensions that the Gospels are theological treatises maybe we should leave it!). But it is harmless and so I put it back. 2) As for the second half. Here is what is bothersome about this. As I DID explain in my note, this is confessional. The only reason I can see to put this in here is to extol the greatness of Jesus. As such it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. But what I did not say in the brief "reason for edit" space and what is most bothersome to me, is that in this regard Jesus is like any person or any topic. Can we know everything about Abraham Lincoln? Can we say everything that could be said about him? Probably not -- indeed "even the whole world" would not have room for the books that could be written about the works of Lincoln. Saying this just doesn't add any information that would help a reader of this encyclopedia article understand apostolic christology (or anything, for that matter). Is what you would like to communicate, is that the Gospels are not biographies of Jesus and do not attempt to exhaustively describe him, something like that? If so, something like that would be very reasonable. Very! 3) I am very fine with not delving into the thorny issues of the historical Jesus here. No intention to go there. Also OK with not delving into "who wrote the Gospels" but we should be careful to avoid making statements that embody one theory or another, and we should be neutral on this.

Finally I am OK with adding back that Jesus didn't leave any writings. I think it is obvious and doesn't need to be stated but you want it and it is harmless so I will put it back.Jytdog (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I can not agree on your view on John 21:25 and your characterization of it as "confessional". The reason for that statement was to state that the Gospels do not claim to include all the works of Jesus, i.e. they do not claim completeness. And given that this is a theological article that can not be a POV item, since it is a "direct quote". And again, per WP:STATUSQUO it must remain there while we discuss it. That is what that policy is for. Your are breaching that policy, which I assume you have read now. Period. History2007 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi History2007 - the page you keep referring me to is about reversions, which the page defines as follows: "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." I have been confused by your referring me to this page as I have always thought "revert" = hitting the "undo" button. And so I have been baffled as it appears that you reverted me, not vice versa. But you are referring to the "more broadly" part, I take it, and feel that I reverted you? Is that it? I feel that must be it, so I will restore the quote now.

However I do wish to continue discussing a way to say this better because the current statement is not acceptable to me. Let's try to reach consensus. If we cannot agree then we shall get a mediator. Will restore, then come right back.Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I undid my reversion. Here is the sentence: "The Gospels provide episodes from the life of Jesus and some of his works, but John 21:25 states that even the whole world would not have room for the books that could be written about the works of Jesus.[1]"

We are only contesting what follows the "but". How about if it were to read as follows. "but the {{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_gospels#Gospel_Genre%7Cgenre]] of the Gospels is not scholarly history as we think of that genre today; nor does it claim to be exhaustive (see for example John 21:35)."Jytdog (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what we can try is the following:
"The Gospels provide episodes from the life of Jesus and some of his works, but the authors of the New Testament show little interest in an absolute chronology of Jesus or in synchronizing the episodes of his life (Ref1), and as in John 21:25 the Gospels do not claim to be an exhaustive list of his works.(Ref2)
I should say that I selected those carefully, in order not to open the Pandora's box of historical Jesus which within Wikipedia often leads to never ending debates with people on both sides arguing about it. Ref 1 is Encyclopedia of theology, page 731 and is an almost direct quote. Note that it sidesteps the historicity question (as Christologies often do) but states the obvious that the authors were writing to deliver a religious message, not a train schedule like chronology of when the visits by Jesus to the Temple took place. And Ref 2 is O' Collins again. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That is a-Ok by me. Thanks for compromising! Jytdog (talk) 22:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Error in edit[edit]

In this edit Jytdog deleted the word Christology based on the statement that there is "no Christology in the Synoptic Gospels", because "these are narratives". I am sorry, this is a flatly false statement. It is so false, and off topic I am almost speechless. A simple reading of the basic literature on the topic of Christology will immediately show that there are detailed discussions on the Christology of those Gospels. As a start, that very piece of text was referenced to the Catholic encyclopedia article, which has a section called: "Christology of the synoptists". Moreover, the very existence of books such as:

  • The character and purpose of Luke's christology by Douglas Buckwalter, 1996 Cambridge University Press
  • The Christology of Mark's Gospel by Jack Dean Kingsbury 1983 Augsburg Books
  • Wisdom in the Christology of Matthew by Frances Taylor Gench, 1997 Univ Press of America

should provide a hint that scholars write about the Christology of each of the Synoptics, and the statement that there is "no Christology" in the synoptics is just flatly incorrect. I will not edit that error now, in order not to start an edit war, but Jytdog now that you have introduced that error, you should revert it yourself.

And Jytdog as a starter, I would recommend a careful reading of Chapter 5 of "Studies in Matthew by Ulrich Luz, 2005." Chapter 5 is titled "Matthean Christology" and section 5.1 is called "Narrative Christology". Ulrich Luz is the expert on Matthew and a good reading of that chapter should provide an introduction to the topic. After that there are also books on the Christology of the other two Synoptics, but reading Luz would be a good start. History2007 (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


I will grant that "no Christology" was too brief a statement. Granted. What is fair to say is that there is no one Christology in the Gospels and no complete Christology in any of them; many of them embody conflicting christological viewpoints. As Buckwalter indicates, "Few would argue that Luke has given us his christology in full.... The problem of ambiguity deepens in that even some of Luke's recorded christology seems confusing, if not outright contraditory.... Stephen G. WIlson, whose comments are fairly representative in this regard, argues that: 'Luke charcateristically uses diverse, often ancient, christological materials without integrating them into any overall scheme..... Luke, it appears, was a somewhat indiscriminating collector of christological traditions who transmits a variety of traditional terms and concepts without reflecting upon them individually or in conjunction with each other.'" This is what I mean. This view -- which Buckwalter indicates is "fairly representative" of the scholarly view -- means that there is certainly no christology in Luke from the point of view systematic theology -- and even in a less rigorous theological context there is no one point of view to hang your hat on. The gospels are not theological treatises; they are narratives meant to tell the story and transmit the "good news". They are lovely and rich, but they are not theological treatises. I do apologize, "no christology" was far too flat and brief; but the original statement was too flat the other way. I will edit. Jytdog (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Chalcedon[edit]

The new edits to the Chalcedonian issues do not have any major errors - and do not say anything new anyway. But I should comment in passing that the article already says that "debates seemed to be over a theological iota". That text did not come from me, but it happens to be true, in that they were fighting political battles. So the removal of "seemingly minor" issues, takes away from the information about the debates. Had there been no political angle, they could have agreed on the issues, but the atmosphere was so politically charged that the seemingly minor issues resulted in a schism. So deleting that just reduces useful info. History2007 (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

We seem to really disagree here... I did notice that you trivialized these early theological battles consistently, so you clearly see this as true. However oceans of ink have been spilled over these differences throughout history; at that time there were riots over them. Were they politicized? Yes they were. Does that mean there were not serious theological issues at stake? No it doesn't. There is a big difference to how you might live if you thought Jesus was born a man but was somehow deified (was it his merit, or pure grace.. is this path available to me and you?) or if he was somehow born man and God.... maybe in our day when most folks appear to have given up serious thinking about what the "physis" of a human is, much less what the nature of humanity is, much less what the nature of God is.. it is easy for the eyes to glaze over, but that does not mean that the issues are trivial.. Can we please leave that out? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

There were initial heated debates and serious disagreements and people died over them, of course. The initial differences were significant (Nestorianism, Arianism etc.), but the final disagreements could have been resolved had there not been political issues. That was my point. Even the Nestorianism issues were deliberately exacerbated due to political issue because Celestine I was so angry with Nestorius for other reasons (e.g. criticism of royal lavish lifestyles) and sent Cyril of Alexandria to finish him off. But that is another story, and we need not delve int it. Only 2% of readers will be interested in that. History2007 (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).