Talk:Council of Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity (Rated Start-class, High-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Bible (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Needed changes[edit]

This is an important subject but unfortunately a very poor article. I deleted some irrelevant material as a way to make the article easier to read. But it needs some major restructuring.

I believe the actual decree should be mentioned a lot earlier and more prominently. The discussion of the background should come only after the actual decision is explained. The article should also explain the different versions of the Apostolic decree that can be found in different manuscripts. Finally there should be a better discussion of theological interpretations of the decree. Most Christians do not follow the food laws in the decree and this should be explained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathHisSci (talkcontribs) 16:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Try carefully reading the article first, then make constructive edits, rather than just section blanking. The decree, and the various versions is mentioned right in the introduction. Theological interpretations are mentioned in the section Council_of_Jerusalem#Interpreting_the_Council.27s_decision. And it is also mentioned that most Christians today don't follow the food laws, with the exception of the Greek Orthodox. Also, you're not supposed to top post here. But welcome to wikipedia and please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines to get started. 75.14.215.248 (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcoming words. I am sorry if I violated a style manual by placing my post on top (though that does not seam to be what your link on top posting is talking about.) As for the contents of my comments I stand by them completely and I believe that if you read the article carefully you will agree with me. As it is now the actual decision of the council is mentioned first after the introduction and after a lengthy background section and even then the actual content of the decision could be explained a lot clearer. There is also no explanation of why most Christians do not follow the food laws. Their is a section on the interpretation of the decision but it does not contain any actual theological interpretation of the decree. It does however contain discussion of whether the decree was followed which is a quite separate issue from how it was interpreted. I also find your reverts of my edits deeply puzzling. Deleting irrelevant material is surely appropriate and presumably you cannot dispute that how reform Judaism views circumcision is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you have problems with how the section reads after the removal of the irrelevant material I suggest you make constructive edits instead of just reverting my changes. MathHisSci (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The view of Reform Judaism is relevant background, because there are Christians also who claim biblical circumcision is only a ritual. The issue of "why most Christians don't follow the food laws" is addressed in Biblical law in Christianity. If you have something to add on why most Christians don't follow the Apostolic Decree, which is relevant to this article, add it, with references of course. Wikipedia policy calls for No Original Research and Reliable Sources. Likewise, if you have sourced material on interpretation of the decree, add it.

75.0.11.194 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Unfortunately I am not competent to add anything regarding how the Apostolic decree has been interpreted. I might do some reading on the issue however if no one else has anything to add. I still do not understand why you consider the view of Reform Judaism relevant. It surely doesn't shed any light on the Jewish views at the time. If we are to have it in the article I would prefer that we move it to a separate section where we discuss modern Jewish views on the issue and compare it with the Christian take. This at least would make more sense than to have it in a section called background. I also suggest that we switch the order of the section on background and the section called "issues and outcome". MathHisSci (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't background come first, after the intro? I have no problem with a seperate section at the end for modern Jewish and Christian views. I agree the perspective of Reform Judaism is not really background, but it is a modern perspective that seems relevant, only because some Christians use the same argument (that circumcision is merely a ritual). I'll make those changes, see what you think. 75.14.210.64 (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think the structure is clearer now, thank you for the change. Regarding the ordering of the section I believe it is important that the reaer quickly gets an understanding of what the article is really about, sort of like you put the most important stuff first in a newspaper article. I will edit the introduction so it mentions the actual cointent of the decision which might be sufficient. MathHisSci (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "However, more recent scholarship inclines towards treating the Jerusalem Council and its rulings as a historical event,[18] though this is sometimes expressed with caution" is a bit misleading. It seems the "more recent scholarship" still considers the event to be a later addition that never happened, and it's not "sometimes" addressed with caution except by the very few who actually accept it as an actual event. Until then, there are over 5 links of "recent" scholars who disagree compared to one "recent" German neo-Tubingener and a 1950's Christian scholar. I suggest this be reworded to reflect the actuality of the current concensus on Acts 15 lest it seem someone is misapplying what "recent scholarship" is actually represented by. - Sman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.18.177 (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Addition of "Council" Template[edit]

Synods are not ecumenical councils. The Church did not exist until Penecost, so no Church council is possible until after Pentecost. The passage in Acts was produced by Luke. It was not a document produced by the Council.

If you discount the validity of Acts of the Apostles (your claim that Luke didn't accurately record the document produced by the Council), what is the basis for your claim that: "conclusion of the council liberated Christians from obligations of the Mosaic law"? Are you aware that that would be Antinomianism? You believe the Council rejected the Ten Commandments? What is your reference for that claim? Keep in mind: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and No original research and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Just for the record, here is my reference: "Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, with the following letter: ‘The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.’" (Acts15:22-29NRSV)209.78.20.114 20:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that Luke didn't record it accurately, only that Acts of the Apostles was not a document produced by the council. We don't even know if Luke was present at the council or if he got his info from Paul. I am not doubting the validity of AoA as an historical document, only saying that it was not a product of the CoJ. We don't know if the CoJ produced any written document. The Church recognized the 10 Commandments because it was natural moral law, not because it was Mosaic law. If one claims that Christians obey the 10 Commandments because it is Mosaic law, then wouldn't one have to explain why Christians do not obey all of Mosaic law? The CoJ released all Christians from Mosaic law.

Your claim ("The CoJ released all Christians from Mosaic law") is unsupported POV and Antinomianism. Unless you can provide a cite. On the other hand, Acts of the Apostles states: "Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, with the following letter:" ... it then goes on to quote that letter. According to Acts, that letter was the result of the council, scholars commonly refer to it as the Apostolic Decree. Your claim is that it was not - cite your references, otherwise it's just undocumented POV and excluded from wikipedia. Until you can provide a reference for your claim, I'm reverting your original research edit.63.201.26.43 21:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I do see your point about the letter Luke writes about in Acts. But to whom was the letter addressed? If the letter was not to the entire Church, but to only the people that Paul and Barnabas were visiting, then it was not an official document of the council. The Apostolic Decree, then, was oral and not written. If you have evidence that the letter in question was an official council document addressed to the entire Church, please produce it.

Second, Christians are not bound by Mosaic law. If you want proof, visit some Christians and ask them if they keep kosher. I see no need to cite a source for this. Mosaic law is a relic to Christians.

Your argument is with Acts of the Apostles. Provide a reputable reference for your claim that Acts is wrong or drop it, original research is not allowed on wikipedia. Also, you have a Wikipedia:Three-revert rule violation.64.169.6.113 04:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is with reality. You have a Wikipedia:Three-revert rule violation. Please answer....Do Christians keep kosher? What evidence do you have that the letter refered to in AoA was an official document of the council as opposed to a letter addressed only to those Paul and Barnabus were visiting?

Read Acts. For example, James challenging Paul about rumor of antinomianism: "Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law. But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgement that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having purified himself, he entered the temple with them, making public the completion of the days of purification when the sacrifice would be made for each of them." 21:24b-26NRSV If you have a reputable reference for your claim that the Council of Jerusalem rejected Mosaic Law, cite it. Otherwise, original research is not valid on wikipedia, see No Original Research for details. Acts of the Apostles records the Council of Jerusalem and the Letter (later called the Apostolic Decree) "written in their own hands" which announces the "unanimous agreement" of the Council. If you have a reputable reference that claims the Council of Jerusalem did otherwise, cite it.64.169.6.84 21:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Christians do not keep kosher anymore. They have not been bound by Mosaic law since the Council of Jerusalem. If you must have a source for something that requires only elementary observation, then so be it. Source number one...the Catholic encyclopedia under the entry judaizers. Source number two...the Catholic Answers magazine publication of This Rock, May 1994. See the article Heresey of the Month by Jimmy Akin, Director of Apologetics at Catholic Answers, editor of This Rock. Source number three....This Rock magazine June 1993. See the article titled Galatians by Antonio Fuentes, Professor of theology, University of Navarre, Spain.
Christians are no longer bound by Mosaic law. You mentioned that Christians obey the ten commandments. True, the tc were part of Mosaic law, but again, the reason Christians still obey the ten commandments is because they originate in natural moral law, not because they are mosaic law. Mosaic law has been a relic to Christians since the CoJ.
Also, AoA states that the letter in question went to Antioch. Luke doesn't tell us that any written decree went to the entire Church. If none did, then the letter to Antioch was a private letter and not an official council document. This would mean that the decree was oral, but not written. I don't know of any evidence of a written decree going to the universal Church. If you do, please share.
Is there any evidence that St. John the apostle convoked the council? Someone continues to add that.

Karl Josef von Hefele's (a Roman Catholic Bishop) commentary on canon II of Gangra in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [1]: "We further see that, at the time of the Synod of Gangra, the rule of the Apostolic Synod <<Council of Jerusalem>> with regard to blood and things strangled was still in force. With the Greeks, indeed, it continued always in force as their Euchologies still show. Balsamon also, the well-known commentator on the canons of the Middle Ages, in his commentary on the sixty-third Apostolic Canon, expressly blames the Latins because they had ceased to observe this command. What the Latin Church, however, thought on this subject about the year 400, is shown by St. Augustine in his work Contra Faustum, where he states that the Apostles had given this command in order to unite the heathens and Jews in the one ark of Noah; but that then, when the barrier between Jewish and heathen converts had fallen, this command concerning things strangled and blood had lost its meaning, and was only observed by few. But still, as late as the eighth century, Pope Gregory the Third 731 forbade the eating of blood or things strangled under threat of a penance of forty days." Of course, anyone who actually reads the article Council of Jerusalem would know this.209.78.22.70 20:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Original Research[edit]

Claim #1: "If the council produced any official documents, they no longer exist."

Response: Acts 15 is the record of the council, the Letter of the Apostles and Elders to the Gentiles turning to God (commonly called the Apostolic Decree) is recorded in Acts 15:22-29, 21:24-26, and elsewhere, see the article for references. 209.78.22.70 22:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Claim #2: "the Apostolic Decree recorded in Acts of the Apostles 15:19-29 ... liberated Christians from the obligations of Mosaic law."

Response: Unless a Wikipedia:Reliable sources can be cited for the claim that the Council of Jerusalem liberated Christians from the obligations of Mosaic Law, it is original research and not applicable to wikipedia. According to the Apostolic Decree of the Council of Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts of the Apostles, Gentile Christians turning to God are requested to at least follow the restrictions listed in the Decree, which are part of the Mosaic Law. In addition, James the Just challenged Paul of Tarsus on this very subject in Acts 21:21, his response in Acts 21:24-26 shows that he did not believe, at least according to Acts, that the Mosaic Law had been eliminated for Christians. In conclusion: Where is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the claim that the Council of Jerusalem "liberated Christians from the obligations of Mosaic law." If it exists it should be added to the section Council_of_Jerusalem#Interpreting_The_Council.27s_decision. 209.78.22.70 22:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Acts of the Apostles was not an official document of the CoJ. Luke wrote it independently. The fact that Luke wrote about the CoJ doesn't mean that what he wrote was a document of the council. I once read a magazine article on the Second Vatican Council. I don't doubt the historical accuracy of the article, but that does not mean that it was an official document of the council.

"Acts 15 is the record of the council, the Letter of the Apostles and Elders to the Gentiles turning to God (commonly called the Apostolic Decree) is recorded in Acts 15:22-29, 21:24-26, and elsewhere, see the article for references. "

Records of councils are not official council documents. Besides, Acts is not the record of the council, it is a record of the council. Letters to a specific group of Christians are also not official Council documents. Official documents of Church Councils are statements addressed to the entire Church, produced by the council, stating all of the decisions and conclusions of the council and signed by the members of the council. Neither Acts nor the letter Acts mentions tries to do any of those things. Citing a source for what is so obvious is not possible. Nobody has done research to assert that Acts of the Apostles was not an official document of the CoJ because nobody has ever claimed that it was such. If you think it was, the burden of proof is on you.

A Church order not to eat blood or things strangled is not an indication that Mosaic law was still binding. These two things made up only the tiniest fraction of Mosaic law, and as you indicated by quoting Augustine, the Council only continued to enforce these two things so as to be charitable to the Judaizers. The CoJ liberated Christians from Mosaic law. The sources I used for this (the Catholic encyclopedia and the theology professor) are valid sources. I don't know how anybody could think this is original research, unless you want to ignore every valid source that confirms my assertion. The fact that James later changed his mind doesn't help your case. James alone had no authority.

And you still have not given any reason why you think John the apostle convoked the council. Talk about original research. You say that Acts 15 is the record of the council? Acts 15 doesn't even mention John.

Where does the Catholic Encyclopedia say: "the Apostolic Decree or the Council of Jerusalem liberated Christians from the obligations of Mosaic law"? If any Wikipedia:Reliable sources exist (Catholic Encyclopedia is a wikipedia reliable source), they should be added to the section Council_of_Jerusalem#Interpreting_The_Council.27s_decision.209.78.20.217 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for information, the Catholic Catechism on the Law: http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt3.htm#art1

"1968: The Law of the Gospel fulfills the commandments of the Law. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount, far from abolishing or devaluing the moral prescriptions of the Old Law, releases their hidden potential and has new demands arise from them: it reveals their entire divine and human truth. It does not add new external precepts, but proceeds to reform the heart, the root of human acts, where man chooses between the pure and the impure,22 where faith, hope, and charity are formed and with them the other virtues. The Gospel thus brings the Law to its fullness through imitation of the perfection of the heavenly Father, through forgiveness of enemies and prayer for persecutors, in emulation of the divine generosity."

"1971: To the Lord's Sermon on the Mount it is fitting to add the moral catechesis of the apostolic teachings, such as Romans 12-15, 1 Corinthians 12-13, Colossians 3-4, Ephesians 4-5, etc. This doctrine hands on the Lord's teaching with the authority of the apostles, particularly in the presentation of the virtues that flow from faith in Christ and are animated by charity, the principal gift of the Holy Spirit. "Let charity be genuine. . . . Love one another with brotherly affection. . . . Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality."29 This catechesis also teaches us to deal with cases of conscience in the light of our relationship to Christ and to the Church."

"1973: Besides its precepts, the New Law also includes the evangelical counsels. The traditional distinction between God's commandments and the evangelical counsels is drawn in relation to charity, the perfection of Christian life. The precepts are intended to remove whatever is incompatible with charity. The aim of the counsels is to remove whatever might hinder the development of charity, even if it is not contrary to it."

"1975: According to Scripture the Law is a fatherly instruction by God which prescribes for man the ways that lead to the promised beatitude, and proscribes the ways of evil."

From Catholic Encyclopedia Antinomianism http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01564b.htm

"The sixth session of the Ecumenical Council of Trent was occupied with this subject and published its famous decree on Justification. The fifteenth chapter of this decree is directly concerned with Antinomian heresy, and condemns it in the following terms: "In opposition also to the cunning wits of certain men who, by good works and fair speeches, deceive the hearts of the innocent, it is to be maintained that the received grace of justification is lost not only by the infidelity, in which even faith itself if lost, but also by any other mortal sin soever, though faith be not lost; thereby defending the doctrine of the Divine law, which excludes from the King of God not only the unbelieving, but also the faithful who are fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins; from which, with the help of Divine grace, they are able to refrain and on account of which they are separate from the grace of Christ" (Cap. xv, cf. also Cap. xii). Also, among the canons anathematizing the various erroneous doctrines advanced by the Reformers as to the meaning and nature of justification are to be found in the following:

  • Canon 19: "If anyone shall say that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or that the Ten Commandments in no wise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema."
  • Canon 20: "If anyone shall say that a man who is justified and how perfect soever is not bound to the observance of the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe; as if forsooth. the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observation of the commandments; let him be anathema."
  • Canon 21: "If anyone shall say that Christ Jesus was given of God unto men as a Redeemer in whom they should trust, and not also as a legislator whom they should obey; let him be an anathema."
  • Canon 27: "If anyone shall say that there is no deadly sin but that of infidelity; or that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save only by that infidelity; let him be anathema."

The minute care with which the thirty-three canons of this sixth session of the Council were drawn up is evidence of the grave importance of the question of justification, as well as of the conflicting doctrine advanced by the Reformers themselves upon this subject. The four canons quoted above leave no doubt as to the distinctly Antinomian theory of justification that falls under the anathema of the Church. That the moral law persists in the Gospel dispensation, and that the justified Christian is still under the whole obligation of the laws of God and of the Church, is clearly asserted and defined under the solemn anathema of an Ecumenical Council."

In all of the Cannons and decrees you cite above, there is no mention of "Law of Moses" or "Mosaic Law". They do mention the term "Law", but as I indicated above, there is a distinction Natural Moral law and Mosaic law. Since the CoJ confirmed that fact that non Jews were not bound by Mosaic law (circumcision and many other practices) as my sources indicate, I stand by my postion. I think it would help if we define terms. What do you mean by "Mosaic law"? Can you list any source that specifically states that Christians are still bound by Mosaic law? If you can, I will conceed your point.

And can we confidently say that the CoJ is not known to have produced any official document?

The Council of Jerusalem wasn't Ecumenical, so I'm deleting Template: Ecumenical council, see also Talk:First_Council_of_Nicaea#Council_of_Jerusalem_wasn.27t_the_first_Ecumenical_Council.3F. Stop POV pushing! See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. 64.169.7.142 20:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The subject of the status of Mosaic Law in Christianity is one of the great debates of Christianity. There is no need to debate it here, see Matthew 5:17 and Old_Testament#Christian_view_of_the_Law. 209.78.18.222 21:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Responding to request for Comment: There is a lot of commentary in this article and very few citations. Since this is evidentally a disputed topic, if this is a critical hot spot in history regarding the debate, it may be an appropriate place to list all sides of the discussion -- or link to another page that does so -- if one exists. For NPOV on a disputed subject, it is important to state all sides of the debate in the language of, and to the satisfaction of that camp and cite the most credible advocates of that POV. For example, I think if the above citations are used, some Protestant and Eastern Orthodox citations should be used as well, if they differ, to achieve NPOV. I hope this helps take the discussion to a more civil place. WALTR 03:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Looks like more original research[edit]

"This indicates rather forcefully that the apostles and presbyters believed the Holy Spirit had guided them, even to overriding Scripture when necessary. Genesis 17:9-14 regarding circumcision, and all of Leviticus 11 regarding keeping kosher has no more validity to the Church. This also demonstrates thee awareness of the apostles and presbyters that the Church was to rule itself, as promised by Jesus. In Matthew 16:18 and 18:18, first to Peter, then to the Church, is granted absolute legislative power by Jesus ("whatsoever you bind ... whatsoever you loose ..."). In John 16:13 Jesus promises "But when he, the Spirit of Truth, has come, he will teach you all truth ...""

Are there any Wikipedia: Reliable Sources for this interpretation that the Council of Jerusalem rejected portions of the Bible? 75.0.5.72 07:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

75.15.207.230 and Vandalism[edit]

The anonymous editor who deleted recent edits on the gournds of vandalism might care to engage in discussion. Much of the material was disputable :' A common interpretation'. Interpretion may not be necessary when the words in the text are explicit. I removed some anachronistic (fourth century) material and much that was only tangental to the topic. Referances to the Noahide covenant can be found in many places and the matter is marginal to the Council which, of course, was never called a Council at the time. I tried to defend each separate edit and would be gratified to receive by way of a response a reason why all, including the remarkable picture of a rainbow, were reinserted.

The fact is that the council is but one small part of the dispute as to how Jewish christianity was to be, a topic which, unfortunately lacks really good coverage. It appears of course under 'Judaisers' and 'New Perspective' (on Paul) but there is no real grappling with the major authors of the last fifty years who have tangled with it. This, rather than quotations from online sources which, it might be suspected, are included because of their availability, is what should be tackled. I am trying to prepare some work for it.

But fianlly, my opinions may be wrong, but they were not intended to vandalise an article which was overlong, full of extraneous material and lacking is serious engagement with the issues in which it should be engaged. Roger Arguile 11:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PS The Primacy of Peter may be a very important issue but, again, it is marginal to the Council of Jerusalem. Of course, in an article on Peter the Council of Jerusalem may be cited in evidence one way or the other, but it does not work the other way around. I fear that this article is the subject of all manner of extraneous matter which, though vital elsewhere are not as significant as the problematic relationships between Paul and James and the difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. Roger Arguile 12:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has been stable for some time. It is rather rude to just barge in and delete more than half of the current article, in a crude fashion with many mistakes, and slap a cleanup tag on it. 64.149.83.99 20:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC) (Jean-Paul)

I noticed that the article had been stable. I appreciate the dismay of those who felt it to be adequate or even good. I understand the feelings. However, the work was done incrementally rather than in one go. It may be that the above unnamed editor would wish that notice be served on previous editors, as by using the talk page. My experience of this is that there is rarely a response.

Most of all, though, I should be glad to have pointed out to me the mistakes. I contributed the section on the Council in Paul of Tarsusand therefore had some experience, as well as this being a particular area of expertise. It is for that reason that I am concerned about the crudity of my edit and the many mistakes that it has thrown up. If I have worsened a good article I am very sorry; but discussion of the substance may reveal where I am in error. For this I should be grateful to read. Roger Arguile 09:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As you say, let's take it incrementally, step by step, rather than just block deleting over half the current article. What is the first issue you propose changing? Let's see what the consensus is before the change is implemented. 64.149.82.195 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (Jean-Paul)
Also, above you appear to allude to some modern interpretations of the Council of Jerusalem, hopefully they are Wikipedia: Reliable sources, if so, please add them to Council_of_Jerusalem#Interpreting_the_Council.27s_decision. 64.149.82.195 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (Jean-Paul)

One serious problem with this article is that it has accumulated some very peculiar matieral, for example numerous allusions to Biblical Apocrypha whose inclusion are constantly justified because the Ethiopian Church includes them in its canon. I've done enough reading about the Ethiopian Church to be confident in writing that this event holds no special value to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church that I am aware of. (There is a priest of that faith who occasionally contributes to WP, so he could be consulted to verify my opinion.) Another problem is that this article -- at least at one point -- was heavily influenced by how the Jehovah Witnesses understand this event. Now I'm not opposed to including their opinions in this article -- actually, I welcome this -- but I think that their opinions need to be identified & presented as the POV of the Jehovah Witnesses. Lastly, I suspect that this article has been stable for so long not because it is well written, but because a number of reliable Wikipedians have shaken the dust from their sandals upon this article & walked away. -- llywrch 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, so I can't speak to their interpretation. As for your claim about justification by the Ethiopian Church, are you refering to the quote of Jubilees Chapter 7, verses 20-33? You don't believe that is relevant to the Apostolic Decree? 64.149.82.195 23:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (Jean-Paul)
Yes, about the book of Jubilees. I don't see what the relevance of that work has to this conference. -- llywrch 02:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
And I'd like to add: clearly there are a lot of interpretations of Acts 15 the Council of Jerusalem. That shouldn't be a problem, let's just document them, rather then asserting that any particular interpretation is more relevant than others. I believe that is the spirit of NPOV. 64.149.82.195 23:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (Jean-Paul)
I agree. However, as the article now stands, it appears to be a collection of odd-ball opinions that no significant group would endorse. (By this, I'm including the JH.) -- llywrch 02:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


I shall try to make myself plain for the benefit of the anonymous editor 64.149.82.195. I had already made incremental changes as he/she will see if she/he consults the history. Ech change was described and explained, albeit in short order. 64.149.82.195 may notice that there seems to be a view that the article, as it became when he removed my series of incremental edits, is not very ordered. I would be grateful if she/he would comment on the particular changes eg. that the Isaac Newton's contribution was marginal and that his biblical scholarship has not been recognised; that the Apostolic constitutions were late (4th century) etc. I have already covered these points and it is less than helpful for 64.149.82.195 to have removed them without argument and without defence of the previous status of the article. I appreciate that radical changes are likely to raise hackles - I had no intention to be rude - but the purpose of the exercise is to produce tightly written accurate and germane articles. This was none of these things. Substance please! PS I note that 64.149.82.195, while not having broken the revert rule comes close to offending the spirit. Roger Arguile 09:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The modern interpretations come in part from Christopher Rowlands, Christian Origins (sPCK 1985) Mr. Rowland was at the time Dean of Jesus College, Cambridge.I shall insert refs. shortly.Roger Arguile 09:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

75.15.206.73[edit]

We seem to have entered a realm in which unidentifiable editors regard resort to blanket reverts as a substitute for argument. Offedning against the revert rule comes close. but much more important than this is the failure to advance any, let alone coherant arguments against the painstaking incremental work that had been done. I note that one administrator pointed out the possibility that the article might have been stable because some wp editors had walked away from it having shaken off the dust from their feet. I can sympathise. Ho0wever, could I get those who find it preferable to revert than to offer constructive argument to explain how the extraneous material can be justified. It also helps if people register. The rest of us do not now whether the various anonymous edits are being done by the same person using different machines. Nor are we able to communicate directly via the user talk pages. WP is open to all, but a level playing field, as we say in England, is desirable. I want to add some material on the nature of the Judaisers but at present the revert squall is making progress more difficult. Roger Arguile 10:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Reach consensus on talk first before major edits to an article that has been stable for some time. 75.15.206.73 10:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (Jean-Paul)

I shall now defer to an administrator. 75.15.206.73 still supplies no arguments in order to achieve the consensus she/he so earnestly desires. She/he has received some explanation from an administrator as to why the article was stable. No positive arguments have been put forward against my edits. This is now no longer a matter for me. Roger Arguile 10:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am an Admin, & both of you have broken the 3RR rule. Normally I would suggest that both of you take a 24 hour break from this article, then try to discuss it. However, I note that Roger Arguile has put forth some arguments to support his edits, while the anon editor at 75.15.206.73 has only pleaded that he should not make these edits because "the article has been stable for some time". Citing policy -- such as "stable versions" or the 3RR rule only carry the day if it makes sense to prudent & reasonable people. Common sense dictates that this reference to policy only matters if it can be shown that the previous version has been persuasively defended on the Talk page -- but reading the above, I see no sign of this. And blocking both of you for breaking this rule would solve nothing. I'd like to assume good faith on behalf of both parties, so I ask the anon editor to provide a different argument defending that stable version, & engage in a discussion with Roger -- otherwise I'll have to ask that person to stop editting this article. -- llywrch 17:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I supply a different argument:

In his fourth revision in 24 hours, as far as I can tell, Roger has made the following bulk changes:

1. removed a disambiguation notice

2. replaced the intro paragraph with a paragraph that provides too much detail for the intro, much of the intro as it now exists is about Galatians, which Roger himself notes: "Whether this was the same meeting as that described in Acts is not universally agreed."

3. replaced "a common interpretation" with "the purpose", as if the purpose of the council is well defined

4. removed the section title: "Apostolic Decree"

5. removed the wikilink for Western version of Acts

6. removed reference to the Didache

7. removed discussion of the Primacy of Simon Peter

8. gutted the section on Interpretation, removing references to Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine, Metzger, Newton, Jubilees, Apostolic Constitutions; maybe some of these should go, but all of them? discussion was just beginning above when Roger unilaterally acted

9. removed several existing categories: Category:New Testament chapters, Category:Christianity, Category:Christian theology

10. restored the link JersualemCouncil.org which is about the Jerusalem Council aka Sanhedrin, not the Christian Council of Jerusalem

11. added a second Christianity template at the bottom of the article

All of this has been done without gaining consensus first on the talk page, as requested. 68.123.72.97 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (Jean-Paul)

This is not a defense of your preferred version of this article. You have simply listed all of the changes that you believe he has made. Why do object to them?
BTW, are you the same person who is posting from IP address 75.15.206.73? I had assumed you were two different individuals, but your opening in the post above -- "Alright, I supply a different argument" -- leads me to suspect that you might be the same person. -- llywrch 22:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, Why do I object to these changes? In order: #1 Disambiguation is useful; #2 Intro paragraph has too much detail, too much about Galatians which is not universally agreed to be a description of the Council of Jerusalem; #3 The purpose of the council is not well defined and subject to different interpretations, it is POV to state "the purpose" as if there is only one interpretation of "the purpose"; #4 Apostolic Decree is highly relevant to an article on the Council of Jerusalem, there should be a section with that title; #5 Western Version of Acts should be wikilinked, most readers will have no idea what that is; #6 Didache and Apostolic Constitutions should at least be mentioned, they are clearly related; #7 Primacy of Simon Peter should be mentioned, highly relevant to this council; #8 At the minimum, Augustine's interpretation of the council should be mentioned, ditto for the modern day Metzger, somewhere it should be mentioned that Origen and the Apostolic Constitutions place the Apostolic Council (another name for this council) at Antioch; #9 Categories are important to Wikipedia; #10 Invalid links should be removed; #11 No need for a second copy of the Christianity template, especially at the end. All in all, a very sloppy edit. Too many changes were made in one fell swoop, which is why I requested that consensus be gained on talk first. 68.126.20.47 03:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (Jean-Paul)

(side note not directly relevant to issue: Wikipedia does not handle dynamic IP's well, for the purposes of clarification, I will tag all my responses here with Jean-Paul)

I am clear that John Paul regards my edits as sloppy. What I am less clear about is what the arguments are since they have been telegraphed rather than articulated. Just to take one or two examples: the clarity of the connexion between the Council and for example the Didache and the Apostolic Constitutions may have to be spelt out for those of us who need it showing. The Didache has been described as the work of an isolated Christian Community in Syria, admittedly fairly contemporary though no one can be sure. It would have to be shown that it had any relevance to the Council. The same goes for Augustine and Metzger.The situation may be different with reagrd to a claim that a (the?) Council took place in Antioch, but it is better to deal with the matter by explaining what the differences of view are rather than by merely quoting. I think also JP is confusing me edits with those of others. I did not insert a second Christiantiy template. Nor did I edit all in one swoop. As to the introduction, JP may not be aware but the nub of the debate is the relationship between Paul's account of events and those in Acts. That is why Galatians is so important. As to setting out the purpose of the Council, that is stated in Acts. The use of expressions like 'common interpretation' are discouraged without references to support them. But I am not sure of the way forward since there seems to be no agreement.

I am sorry that I mistunderstood the three R rule. I had thought that I was merely restoring what had been painstakingly inserted, leaving it to others, as I wrote, after JP had resisted my requests for explanation. But I accept the rebuke and the explanation and offer my apologies to the Administration. Roger Arguile 15:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just checking again: contrary to what JP writes, the Decree is mentioned in full and the Western Text is again mentioned. If it is not wikilinked., I don't think that this was any of my doing.

Yet again, the primacy of Peter is regrded by JP as highly relevant, but he does not say why or note the point I made earlier about the Council being relevant to the Primacy of Peter but that it does not work the other way round. Peter's primary is not an issue raised either in Acts or Galatians.

And again I am not sure why Metzger is so important. Those who deal with the issues of Pauline vs. Jewish Christianity are such as Rowlands, Dunn, Wright, Davies, Sanders, all mentioned in the references but not referred to in the text. Roger Arguile 15:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And again, removal of categories was, I fear collatoral damage not intended by me. Roger Arguile 15:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Roger wrote: "I did not insert a second Christiantiy template."

[2]

Roger wrote: "the nub of the debate is the relationship between Paul's account of events and those in Acts. That is why Galatians is so important."

The article is Council of Jerusalem, not the relationship between Paul's accounts and Acts accounts. Galatians is important, but not in the intro. For example, NIV titles Acts 15 as "The Council at Jerusalem", Galatians 2:1-10 as "Paul Accepted by the Apostles". Why? Because it is disputed whether or not Galatians 2:1-10 is an account of the Council of Jerusalem.

Roger wrote: "If it [Western version of Acts] is not wikilinked., I don't think that this was any of my doing."

[3]

Roger wrote: "Peter's primary is not an issue raised either in Acts or Galatians."

Peter's primacy is an issue in the interpretation of the account in Acts.

Roger wrote: "... removal of categories was, I fear collatoral damage not intended by me."

Ah, collatoral damage. I see.

(Jean-Paul)75.14.214.92 18:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is very important to move beyond the present animosity. Repetition of inadequately stated arguments unfortunately does not do so. Nor does sarcasm. Roger Arguile 18:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

top posted question[edit]

Are there any other data on this alleged event, appart from the "New Testament"? 82.46.232.9 12:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Origen Against Celsus 8.29.
Also, Apostolic Constitutions 6.3.12: "But because this heresy [ Judaizers ] did then seem the more powerful to seduce men, and the whole Church was in danger, we the twelve assembled together at Jerusalem ..." 68.123.72.233 20:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If the answer being sought is, do we have any independent sources for the Council of Jerusalem other than the NT, the answer is No. Origen dates around 200, the Apostolic Constitutions were written in the fourth century. The New Testament was freely available by Origen's time and we have no reason to think that he had any other source than the NT. Roger Arguile 16:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Except that Origen's and Apostolic Constitution's versions are different than Acts of the Apostles, in which case they must have gotten it wrong or they had other sources. Given that the accuracy of Luke-Acts is doubted by some, see for example Census of Quirinius, other accounts, such as Origen and Apostolic Constitutions become significant, even though they are of later dates. Also, though Apostolic Constitutions was compiled in the fourth century, it is composed of material from earlier time periods, for example, the Didache. 75.15.205.122 16:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen nowhere any contention that O and AC were written from other sources. If such sources exist, it would be helpful to know what they are. Indeed, O and AC are diffferent in some respects from the Acts, though only marginally. To take a biblical analogy. Some people believe that there is a lost source common to Matthew and Luke. Those who believe in it however, have reached their conclusion only by comparing the two and determining than neither can have copied from the other. Not everyone is convinced by this. In the case of O and AC, no one has ever postulated a source other than Acts - the Matthew/Luke controversy depends on the existence of identical versions in which there are a few variations, not an issue here). O and AC do not frankly become reliable independent sources when their marginal differences from Acts do not in any way suggest the existence of lost sources. The question asked was whether there is any 'data': even 75.15.205.122 does not suggest that O and AC are primary sources; either they are secondary or they have simply interpreted Acts. So the answer still remains No. Roger Arguile 11:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Could editors please register and give their names; otherwise as above there is a suspicion that one person may be using different identifiers. I may be suspicious but, as we can see, it has happened before.Roger Arguile 12:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Origen Against Celsus 8.29 and Apostolic Constitutions 6.3.12 are significantly different from Acts 15. Metzger cites P45 as a possible source for Origen. 75.14.223.27 18:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Interesting about Metzger; not convinced without argument about the differences. Once agin, it is so helpful to know names of editors. checkming to see if this is part of a continuing conversation or whether a new voice has entered, is a little tedious. Roger Arguile 08:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

PS I am not sure what point is being made about p45. P45 is, as I understand it, a New Testament document, of the third century which omits the words 'and from fornication' which Origen also omits. If Origen derives his information from p45 then he is deriving it from a version of the NT, not from any other source. It could be that the dependence is one way round, or the other. In neither case is there a non-blblical source which contributes to our understanding of the Council. So the answer remains No. Roger Arguile 17:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Denominationalist and Catholics take note[edit]

There is no one overseeing body established at the Jerusalem Counsel. If ever there had been an opportunity to do so this would have been it. There is NO where in the New Testament where authority is given for a single organizational or figure head of the church. The only heads of the church are the eldership. Angry Aspie 02:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this argument has been rehearsed fairly often without either side backing down. AA may be sure of her/his views; those who note that Jesus would build his church on Peter, the rock, have theirs. they would say that AA is wrong. However, a comfortable armchair is required by all who want to read of the text-throwing exchanges of Christians. As a friend of mine wrote, Christians do not need lions to be thrown to when they have each other. AA can be assured that what she/says has been known and disputedfor a very long time,.Roger Arguile 14:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations[edit]

This article has a bunch of footnotes but no actual references. I tagged it for this. I hope someone can improve on this article because it is a significant event in Christian history. Kristamaranatha (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? For example, you can tag claims you think need a reference with Template:cn. 75.15.206.39 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the footnotes now seem to be messed up and I am not technologically savy enough to restore them to the proper format. I did remove some vandalism.Liskeardziz (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible myth?[edit]

I thought it might be worth mentioning that, according to Michael Grant's Saint Peter: A Biography, page 122-130, the so-called council may never have actually taken place, but may be a later myth to describe actions which may have taken place individually over a potentially longer period of time. Considering Grant's high esteem as a scholar, I personally think the question of whether the council ever actually took place is a reasonable matter to include in the article. Thoughts? John Carter (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and add the information. There are other scholars also who dispute the authenticity of the "Council of Jerusalem", see also Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles. 75.15.200.100 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite?[edit]

This looks rather a lot like a conservative lecture in a Bible college. Since when were we allowed to use the Bible almost exclusively as the source for an allegedly historical event? I have no qualms about including Biblical evidence as one voice amongst many, but the current state of the article is simply unencyclopedic. Even if this doesn't get a rewrite, a section on historicity and some non-biblical citations are required.

Alternatively, we can relate this council as an unsubstantiated account and adopt the tone of relating a biblical story such as that of Jonah or Ruth.

Something must be done. Anybody agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstpm (talkcontribs) 05:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

A section on historicity sounds like a great idea, please start one. And of course references can always be added. I don't think the Council is in the same category as Jonah or Ruth. It's possible it's purely the invention of whoever wrote Acts, but unlike Jonah and Ruth, there is other evidence. But the evidence is weak, thus a section on historicity is a great idea. 75.15.193.9 (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Incidently, Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament has an excellent summary of current research on the topic as of circa 1971. Here's a quote: "In conclusion, therefore, it appears that the least unsatisfactory solution of the complicated textual and exegetical problems of the Apostolic Decree is to regard the fourfold decree as original (foods offered to idols, strangled meat, eating blood, and unchastity--whether ritual or moral), and to explain the two forms of the threefold decree in some such way as those suggested above. An extensive literature exists on the text and exegesis of the Apostolic Decree. ... According to Jacques Dupont, "Present day scholarship is practically unanimous in considering the 'Eastern' text of the decree as the only authentic text (in four items) and in interpreting its prescriptions in a sense not ethical but ritual" ..." 75.15.193.9 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation[edit]

There was a dialog in this section that indicated that the apostle Paul had a changing view of circumsion, based on a misinterpetation of Philippians 3 verse 2. If you read the greek involved it's clear that the multilation referred to in verse 2, is not a reference to the circumsion in verse 3. Verse 2 is indicating things to watch out for, and circumsion is not mentioned by name or inference. Then verse 3 goes on to talk about the contrast to verse 2, not a reference to verse 2. Considering the above view, I deleted the section is question for the reason given above, namely, that Paul is referring to two separate ideas, not a linked set of similar ideas. Which. therefore invalidates the whole basis for the section I deleted. This section was also not second sourced and was of dubious source. 71.113.0.21 (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted what I thought was blanking vandalism. If there are no good secondary sources supporting this interpretation, then please remove it again. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ecumenical councils navbox[edit]

I don't see a reason for the Ecumenical councils navbox to be in this article, given that the Council of Jerusalem is not listed in it. Does anyone else see a reason to keep it? -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it should be listed then?? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Cut, notability[edit]

cut:

Tim Hegg, a renowned Messianic teacher and apologist states in Do the Seven, Go to Heaven?:

"We conclude, then, that interpreting the edict of the Jerusalem Council on the basis of the later Noachide Laws is both anachronistic and a misunderstanding of the function of the Noachide Laws in the post-destruction rabbinic literature. For not only did the formulation of the Noachide Laws await the post-destruction era, but even when they were formulated within the rabbinic theology of the later Centuries, they did not function as a separate body of laws given to Gentiles as a means of attaining a righteous status, nor even as an actual code of ethics for Gentiles. It is wrong, then, to conclude that the Jerusalem Council gave the gentile believers a minimal list of commandments, exempting them from the full expression of God's will in the Torah. Another explanation for the edict must be sought. Since all the prohibitions in the edict find a connection to practices in the pagan temples, it seems most likely that they were given to assure that the gentile believers had entirely distanced themselves from the idolatry of pagan worship."
Doesn't appear notable WP:source. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

About the "optional" circumcision[edit]

In the section Interpreting the Council's decision, there is a statement:

Most Christians consider circumcision to be only an optional ritual[citation needed],

As far as I know, circumcision is universally discouraged in Christianity, since it is put in opposition against the sacrifice of Jesus/God, and the "circumcision in spirit". I don't know whether it is forbidden, but very nearly so for religious purposes. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


This article goes completely around what was originally talked about in the scriptures.[edit]

Abram believed God, and he was called Abraham and was given the sign of circumcision as a sign that he believed God.

In turning to God, the heart of the uncircumcised is circumcised to the law of God, so that circumcision in the flesh is not necessary as a sign, and this is what the Council of Jerusalem is about, it does not say to disobey the law of God, because then the heart would be uncircumcised, even if you are circumcised.

The commands given by James are an exhortation to continue in the Laws of God even though not being circumcised in the flesh.

“For circumcision verily profits, if you keep the law, but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge you, who by the letter and circumcision does transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God. “

Romans 2:25-29 JosephLoegering (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you have any wikipedia reliable sources for this viewpoint, please add them to the article. You might also be interested in the article on Christian views on the old covenant. 75.14.221.248 (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Greeks, blood and strangulation[edit]

I deleted the comment on the Greeks still observing the limitation pertaining to blood and strangulation, for two reasons. First, because what usually applies to the Orthodox Church is not limited to the Greek Orthodox Church (except for local customs), and therefore the reference should have been to the Orthodox or Eastern Christian Church. More importantly, no modern Greek or other Orthodox source is given. Hefele reads medieval sources when he says this. If anyone has a modern source for this, then by all means you can bring it back and give the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.200.1 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, you edited a direct and referenced quote. We don't do that on wikipedia, it's not credible. 75.0.4.28 (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
If you have a reference that disputes Hefele, by all means add it, without modifying the referenced view of Hefele to fit your beliefs. 75.0.4.28 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Mosaic law covenant[edit]

Regarding recent edits/reverts slowly approaching 3RR in trend if not in timing, Geoffrey W. Bromiley - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Set of 4 volumes) - Page 71 "Deuteronomy brings together the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant and the stipulations of the Mosaic law covenant." ... the phrase is used, but not too common, and not capitalized. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It's really not that complicated an issue. It doesn't matter that the article name is "Mosaic Covenant". Or what Bible Dictionaries you cite (even ones that actually SUPPORT my position, overall). That's not the point. What is the point is that "Mosaic Law Covenant" is ALSO standard and correct way of saying it TOO. You can find that form ALSO. Plus even so, IT'S ACCURATE in its point. (Plus more clear...that it's deal with the LAW that Moses gave, not just "Moses" as phenomenon in general.) Also, as I stated (which you admitted in your talk page), there was NO actual "3RR" situation here. As the revert was over a week ago, NOT "24 hours". (Not to mention the fact that it was the IP address that did the first revert, in the first place...not I. You had to check the dates more carefully...ok, no biggie)
Also, again, the actual issue is that correct and valid modifications are NOT to be reverted by anyone, at all. "Mosaic Law Covenant" is accurate and standard too. Will you say that "Mosaic Law Covenant" is "wrong and inaccurate"? Of course it isn't. It's valid, good-faith, and does have obvious backing...and also arguably a wee bit CLEARER in wording, in context with the paragraph that it's in. So why undo that? Again, the fact that the article name has it as "Mosaic Covenant" is NOT really all that significant, as there are many wiki links with slightly altered or modified display wordings. With no problem. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I reverted Gabby Merger's edit on the basis that it also contains vandalism, changing the year from 50 to 76. Mosaic Covenant is the standard term, yes there are other phrases as the article Mosaic Covenant points out, including yet another one proposed by Gabby Merger, namely "Mosaic law covenant", but this is an encyclopedia, the most used term (Mosaic Covenant) should be used unless there's a valid reason to mention the other minor versions, and I fail to see why the other minor versions need to be mentioned in Council of Jerusalem, perhaps at Mosaic Covenant, but not here, imho. 75.14.223.79 (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, another point, the phrase ("Mosaic law covenant") is redundant. Aren't all covenants also "law covenants"? What would be an example of a non-legal covenant? 75.14.223.79 (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Not all covenants are "law covenants" in the Bible necessarily. And I never put the year "76". There was no "vandalism". I don't know what you're talking about there. You're mistaken. And again, "Mosaic Law Covenant" is CORRECT, AND A VALID MODIFICATION...with zero valid reason to revert, or WP justification to willy nilly remove. Rudely. Making a big uptight issue over this IS INSANE NOW. What's up? Because then it becomes a situation of "I don't like it"...or just plain ignorance. And I wouldn't put up with that. Again, there was NO "vandalism" on my part, so you're out of line for making that stupid charge. Get your facts straight. Where did I put "76" anywhere? You had NO basis to "revert". Thank you. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Can you give an example of a covenant in the Bible that is not a "law covenant"? 108.204.5.167 (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
There were covenants in the Bible that did not necessarily involve spelled-out "laws", per se. The "Mosaic Covenant" was SPECIFICALLY dealing with the "Law of Moses". The Abrahamic Covenant was more a deal with Abraham to have all the nations blessed through his seed. Regardless, IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY...as "Mosaic Law Covenant" is a valid expression, and is used, and there's NO LOGICAL OR SANE REASON that you're giving, that has ANY Wikipedia validity at all, for your constant and neurotic reverting of that. Let it go already. Because you're in violation. Plus you seem to have meat puppets here, with the IP addresses. Not sure why you have such a big hang-up against this in the first place. Gabby Merger (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It does matter, this is an encyclopedia. Just because something is a "valid expression" doesn't mean it should be the one that is used. There are several "valid expressions" for the Mosaic Covenant, as that article points out. Which one should be used in this article? The one that is most commonly used, and that would be Mosaic Covenant. 108.198.156.21 (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, the fact that the article name has it as "Mosaic Covenant" is NOT really all that significant, as there are many wiki links with slightly altered or modified display wordings. With no problem.
And again, to repeat....sighs...."Mosaic Law Covenant" IS ALSO USED IN ENCYCLOPEDIAS TOO!!! What part of that fact is hard to understand or believe or see? It's a standard expression for that ALSO. So there's ZERO Wikipedia justification or reason to be so weirdly uptight about this, and to rudely undo that all the time. Again, "Mosaic Law Covenant" is also used in Encyclopedias... For real.
As for "consensus"?? You're kidding me. There's no "consensus" for YOUR uptight whiny nonsense on here. Plus this is such a minor (and correct) modification, it does not warrant all this edit-warring and craziness from you. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been a long time stable article. Wikipedia policy is to gain consensus on talk before making a change. Mosaic Covenant is the most commonly used term but there are other terms as the article points out. However, wikipedia policy is to use the most commonly used term, since the most readers will be familiar with it. You are proposing that the most commonly used term (Mosaic Covenant) be replaced with the term "Mosaic law covenant". I don't see how that adds any value to this article and is a likely point of confusion. Is the "Mosaic law covenant" different from the Mosaic Covenant? Many general readers will likely be asking that question. Anyway, it is on you to explain in talk why the most commonly used term "Mosaic Covenant" should be replaced with the more rarely used term "Mosaic law covenant". You have not done that to my satisfaction, perhaps other editors have other opinions. 108.198.156.21 (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

After this, I'm not addressing you anymore about this. I already stated things clearly, and thoroughly, and you're just plain wrong. You've been edit-warring, and now you'll get reported to the notice board. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." 108.198.156.21 (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
There is an existing article, Mosaic covenant, whose title is subject to the policy WP:TITLE ("Wikipedia ... prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.") In that case, what is the justification for using a different name for that same subject in this article? Why would it be considered an improvement to use three words (Mosaic Law Covenant) if two words (Mosaic covenant) are accurate and sufficient? I am looking for reasoned answers to those two questions, and I don't see those answers in this thread so far. – Wdchk (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The point that you and the IP are missing is that even though the "preferred" way is to use the exact wording of the article name in the wiki link, it's NOT a dogmatic rule, and a VARIATION in piping CAN be done also. And HAS been done many times, in many articles, with many article names, with no problem. So why raise such a weird fuss about a correct variation in the wiki link? It makes no real sense, and most editors don't get this way over something like this. And to always undo it is simply because of "I don't like" reasons. Meaning, technically, reverting what I did all the time has no actual WP justification. You're falling into the same uptight trap that the IP user has been. It does NOT matter really that the article name is "Mosaic Covenant" IF "Mosaic Law Covenant" is ALSO STANDARD USAGE AND ACCURATE...and arguably more clear, per context of paragraph. And to repeat, reverting that modification (accurate and correct) is against WP policy.
This is a WIKI. No one owns any article, and should not rudely and disrespectfully revert for "I don't like" reasons. Because there's no question that that's really what's up here.
There's no WP rule that says that all WP links have to be the exact wording as the WP article. Variations in link wording is done all the time, with no problem. Because also, it's your OPINION that "Mosaic Covenant" is "sufficient". Obviously, I'm saying it isn't, and so do other sources, that also have it worded as "Mosaic Law Covenant". I already stated the reasons, that PER PARAGRAPH and maybe extra clarity, why not? (And by the way, "Mosaic Covenant" is not necessarily the most widely used anyway, depending. In many reference works etc, the more precise "Mosaic Law Covenant" is used.) What "justification" do you or the IP have to rudely undo an accurate and correct and clearer thing like that? ZERO.
Because WP does allow variations in wiki link wordings, all the time. "Preferred" or not. Again, it's undoing something for "I don't like reasons". And sorry, that IS what this is, after all is said done, is. And that's against WP policy.
If "Mosaic Law Covenant" is A) correct, B) also "standard", and C) sourced...then technically you or the IP have no business dissing the modification edit or reverting it. Period. That's the point. I mean, if "consensus" (which can ALWAYS BE STILL WRONG AND UPTIGHT ANYWAY), ends up having it that way, then whatever. Months later I might still change it, because this is not that a big deal or change. It's TRIVIAL, overall. And no need to have this much of a fuss from that IP user (or you). But for now, if "consensus" uptightly has it that way, then I'll let it go. (Consensus is not always right, just cuz it's the majority in a given time. Also, it's not like 30 editors are on here speaking about this. It's just you and that IP who are saying this.) Gabby Merger (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Obviously you feel very passionate about "Mosaic Law Covenant". Why don't you create that article? There's already an article on Mosaic Covenant and an article on Law of Moses, maybe there should be one on Mosaic Law Covenant. 75.15.201.141 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
You didn't address one specific syllable in my previous comment...not one actual thing. But say this "create the article", when that's not even the point, nor is it necessary, as there already is an article, with just a variation of the name, but is the same thing. The only thing maybe is to do a change of the name of the article, but I doubt that's necessary. The real matter is that you're dodging everything basically I wrote in my previous comment.
Like: "Mosaic Law Covenant" is A) correct, B) also "standard", and C) sourced...then technically the IP has no business dissing the modification edit or reverting it. Period. That's the point.
And that other WP articles have variations in wiki links than the article name it's piping...with no problem, and it's a standard and allowed WP practice.
That wasn't addressed, but conveniently dodged. And also the point that "consensus" can technically be wrong, especially if there's only one or two other editors commenting in the first place, if there happens to be (for example) 3 other editors with the same wrong or uptight issues and attitudes. But it's whatever at this point. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, I guess you would refer to those as "uptight", but nonetheless as a wikipedia editor you agree to abide by them. Standard procedure is to go ahead and be bold and make an edit, but if your edit is reverted, take the issue to the talk page and try to reach a consensus. If you can't reach a consensus on talk, it's fair to say that your edit has been overruled and you should drop it. You may think that your edit is the best edit that's ever been done on wikipedia, but if you get reverted and can't form a consensus for it on talk, really you should just drop it. Wikipedia is all about collaborative editing, not "my way or the highway". If you just want to publish and control on the internet, start your own webpage. 75.15.201.141 (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no reasoning with you, because, frankly speaking, you're stubborn, and it's like talking to a wall.
Wikipedia policy DOES NOT SAY that the wiki links "only solely exclusively" have to be the exact same wording as the article name. "Preferred" is not a "rule" and does not mean "absolute".
You're very "uptight" with that, to be quite blunt, and have this neurotic and trollish hang-up against the wording "Mosaic Law Covenant", even though it's been proven to be correct, standard also, and encyclopedic, and just a valid modification...that no one should raise such a weird fuss about. But in your mind, regarding the actual Wikipedia policy on this, you think "preferred" means "etched in stone no other way to do it, at all".
What you're not getting is that you had ZERO RIGHT AND BUSINESS to "revert" IN THE FIRST PLACE...something that is A) correct, B) sourced and standard also, and C) good faith.
WP policy discourages reverting things for basically "I don't like" nonsense whiny weird and trivial reasons...(your actual reasons, in other words).
You have yet to prove (cuz it just aint so) that "Mosaic Law Covenant" is incorrect, or should not be. It IS correct, and standard too, and sourced, and is just a reasonable clarifying modification, per context and paragraph. So?
The article name does not have to be the exact same as the wiki link, in piping. WP ALLOWS for that all the time. So spare me this "build consensus" nonsense, because this case doesn't even come close to warranting all that, as your reversions were totally 10000% uncalled for in the first place.
And if you think that "Mosaic Law Covenant" is bad or incorrect (???), and should not be that way at all, because the article name is "Mosaic Covenant", yes that's super uptight (and even weird...because most other normal and rational WP editors don't do this crazy nonsense that you're doing...)
WP policy is NOT "uptight". You are. And so is the other editor, backing your nonsense up. I'm tired of this.
WP policy does NOT prohibit variations in wordings in wiki links. That's already been established. So why aren't you trolling on other WP articles and changing those wiki links with variant wordings? I'm curious about that. "Preferred" is whatever, that's not absolute. So the WP policy is not really uptight. Again, you are. To be frank. Because you, in this case, have this NEUROTIC PROBLEM with the wording "Mosaic Law Covenant", even though it's been proven that that IS a standard and encyclopedic way of saying it too. And is a correct way. You had no business reverting it constantly. Anyway, I'm done with you. I'm busy. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Gabby Merger, Wikipedia uses a name for something, and since that name has been accepted by editors up until now, we may conclude that those editors believe this is "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." (WP:TITLE) If you believe this is not the case, then all you have to do is demonstrate that another name is more frequently used in English-language reliable sources. Concisely, and with specific examples. That's all. By the way, I don't have any opinion on which is the correct name, because I don't know the sources. I'm just trying to help by discussing the content and the relevant policies. It would help the discussion if you too would please comment only on content, not on the other contributors. (WP:TPYES) Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood me a little bit. I don't think (necessarily) that "Mosaic Law Covenant" is "the most frequently used". I never said that. What my point was is that "Mosaic Law Covenant" (factually) is A) also standard usage as "Mosaic Covenant", and is B) a bit more clear IN THE CONTEXT of the specific paragraph...and C) that WP policy is NOT this dogmatic notion of "only the actual article name wording should be used in the wiki link wording", as many wiki links can have VARIATIONS in the wording....and D) technically no editor has any right or warrant to blatantly rudely "revert" a good-faith accurate and sourced modification, in variant wiki link wordings, simply because he feels it simply should not be, and misunderstands WP policy on this "preferred" thing. And then reverts basically for "I don't like" reasons. This is a WIKI. Remember? Edits and modifications that are correct (and this was) should be RESPECTED...and LEFT ALONE...technically. Even if another editor personally doesn't "prefer" it that way. Reverting good-faith accurate things and modifications is a no-no on Wikipedia. For real. And E) no "consensus" is really needed on trivial nonsense like this, so that's not even really an issue. So please don't keep mentioning to me this tired "preferred links" stuff and weak argument. It's a laughable argument. Many wiki links have variations in wordings from the actual article name. So? And it's never a problem. But for some oddball reason, it's a big weird problem for this IP user. When there's no need for that. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2013 (UTC)