Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search




WikiProject Christianity (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 

Urgent: comments requested at Matthew 5:9[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page: Matthew 5:9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Talk:Matthew_5:9


Hi I am new to being a member of Wikipedia, saw that the page on Matthew 5:9 has a reference that the gospel says in no place "Our Father" but it does. Matthew 6:9. Paul the Apostle in his epistles explicitly refers to God as our Father(eg Romans 8:15)as I mentioned I am new to Wikipedia and want to contribute in the correct manner and not just change something on that page. Please help with in put on what is the correct manner to correct something. Thank you. 16:27, 15 June 2013 (South Africa)

Are you saying we're misquoting Schweizer and Clarke, or are you saying Schweizer and Clarke have made a mistake? In the latter case there's not much we can do about that; we just summarize what reliable sources say. Paul isn't part of the Gospels, so that doesn't invalidate the article's claim. Anyway, this should probably be discussed at Talk:Matthew 5:9. Huon (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
The claim by Schwiezer and Clarke is probably more nuanced than a straight denial: the article states: 'However, the Gospels never have him referring to God as "Our Father," asserting that the nature of the fatherhood was different for Jesus and the masses.' That is they discard a particular understanding of the phrase. I don't have either text available so cannot check. Jpacobb (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Either way, in Matthew 6:9 (NIV) Jesus tells his disciples to pray "Our Father,..." which rather waters down Schwiezer and Clark's interpretation stated interpretation and should be mentioned included it. In any case, is Schwiezer and Clark's view not WP:FRINGE? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at WP:NPOVN[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page: All Pope pages, especially pre-schism
Discussion: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Early_Popes_of_Rome_as_head_of_the_Catholic_Church_-_opinion_versus_fact


Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. Gold Standard 01:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Persecution of Traditional African Religion[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page: Persecution of Traditional African Religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: [[]]


Comments are urgently requested at the afore mentioned page. We have a discussion which requires informed comments from those familiar with the topic of this discussion. Your help at your earliest convenience will be appreciated. – Lionel (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is the outline of the Gospel of Luke presented on the page for the Gospel of Matthew?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.29.50 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Urgent: comments requested at Episcopal polity[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Page: Oriental Orthodox Churches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Discussion: Talk:Episcopal polity

The article on Episcopal polity says that Greek and Orthodox Churches both trace their apostolic succession back to the Apostle Mark. That's in section five titled "Oriental Orthodox Churches." Having studied the bible and various scholars I have never before heard of the Apostle Mark and I would have thought that such an apostle is not generally known to Christianity. Of course the reference must be about the Evangelist Mark of the Gospel of Mark right? What other Mark would be so much of a big deal huh? Do those churches count him as an apostle for sure? Patriot1423 (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


Move discussion on Talk:Judas[edit]

--Redtigerxyz Talk 14:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus[edit]

Additional eyes would be very welcome on the above article and its talk page. John Carter (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians article[edit]

Stephen2512 (talk · contribs)'s edits to the Sexual repression, Sexual revolution and Sexual abstinence articles popped up on my WP:Watchlist. I don't think that Stephen2512 is new to editing Wikipedia, but that is beside the point at the moment. I decided to look at his contribution history and saw this edit he made to the Persecution of Christians article. It concerns the claims that "Of the world's three largest religions Christians are the most proportionally persecuted with 80% of all acts of religious discrimination being directed at Christians" and "who only make up 33% of the world's population." I think these claims need looking into. Flyer22 (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I am the one who made those claims and they are both cited appropriately. I use the same citation for "who only make up 33% of the world's population." as has already been used as the number 1 reference on List of religious populations Wiki page. The "80% of all acts of religious discrimination being directed at Christians" is also properly cited. The only discrepancy from my post would be "Of the world's three largest religions Christians are the most proportionally persecuted". I am not taking liberty in making this statement it is necessarily a mathematical certainty based on my two citations alone. Please see below:

Formula:

Persecution rate = Percent persecuted of group / Population of group

Percent Persecuted:

  • Christians: 80% or .8
  • Other: 20% or .2

Population:

  • Christianity - 2,100,000,000
  • Islam - 1,600,000,000
  • Hindu - 1,000,000,000

Persecution Rate:

  • Christianity = .8 / 2,100,000,000 = 3.81 * 10^-10
  • Islam = .2 / 1,600,000,000 = 1.25 * 10^-10
  • Hindu = .2 / 1,000,000,000 = 2.00 * 10^-10
  • Buddhist = .2 / 376,000,000 = 5.32 * 10^-10

As you can see, no matter if 1 person is persecuted or if a million people are persecuted, if Christianity receives 80% of the persecutions then Christians will necessarily have a higher persecution rate and will be proportionally more persecuted than people of the Islamic faith and Hindu faith. This is not the case for Buddhists. Because there are fewer Buddhists, if the remaining 20% of persecutions was assumed to occur only to Buddhists then they would overtake Christianity as the most persecuted religion. I stated though, that Christianity is the most persecuted of the world's top three most populous religions. This statement is necessarily true based on my 2 sources alone and independent of how many people are persecuted. This statement is necessarily true.

Stephen2512 (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Stephen2512 (talk · contribs), you removed one source/different text and replaced it with two different sources and new text. So my concerns are the following: What do other WP:Reliable sources state on this matter? Is the news source you used the best source for this material? I also questioned adherents.com as a WP:Reliable source, but, looking at its Wikipedia article, it seems fine, and I've seen it used in other religious Wikipedia articles.
That stated, since no one else watching this WikiProject page has yet weighed in on this matter, I suppose your edits to the Persecution of Christians article are fine. Flyer22 (talk) 05:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep this part of the WP:Verifiability policy in mind: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Clearly, by your removal of that one source/previous text, sources state differently on the matter you changed. Since I am not well versed in religion, I simply don't know which aspect should be given the most WP:Due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
This looks very shaky. They're listed as a website called Adherents.com and article and from The Independent. In fact The Independent isn't the real source, but another organisation quoted by The Independent called International Society for Human Rights. That aside, the figures are arrived at by the OP, and are not found in either source - so the edit is synthesis and OR. Even aside from that, International Society for Human Rights doesn't look at all reliable - it looks like one of those right-wing fronts the Americans were setting up all over the place in the 70s to attack the Soviets, and now apparently going its own way with a more Christian but still right-wing agenda. PiCo (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The Independent is a reliable source and it's perfectly acceptable to use a secondary source, in fact it's preferable. The fact that the Independent used the stat gives it credence. Your claim about the International Society for Human Rights, on the other hand, is going to need evidence. I do agree that any synthesis should be removed, but the 80% figure should stay.--JFH (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

john macarthur & spiritual gifts[edit]

among the gifts he believes were rescinded in abt. 100 ad cleverly he doesnt mention healing for this would cause a riot of protest from people who have been healed spiritually. also it would make god look uncaring for sufferers. this interpretation of the bible is gloomy & i believe is dying out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.160.236 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Easter article[edit]

Please see the discussions here and here on the article talk page regarding the desire to see secular and "syncretic" topics covered. Evensteven (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

New reference added to the Gospel of Matthew[edit]

I took the liberty of adding a new reference to the Gospel of Matthew: Maurice Casey, Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?, A&C Black, 2014. I hope it will be edifying. He is a leading non-Christian historian who in a scholarly fashion examines the evidence regarding the origins the Gospel of Matthew. He concludes that Papias was right: Matthew did write a Gospel in Hebrew. However this early gospel was smaller and more primitive than the Gospel of Matthew we have today and there were major discrepancies between the two. It may have even been composed on wax tablets. His in-depth the study into "composite scholarship" of the Second Temple period has given the academic community much to reflect upon. He puts forward a compelling case that Matthew first composed a gospel in Aramaic and that this became the basis or fountainhead for the composite Gospel of Matthew. Before I start updating the article with material from Casey 2014, I will give others a chance to look at this new work as a sign of good faith. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

East-West Schism article proposed name change[edit]

Please see the discussion here. RFC. Evensteven (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this discussion would be better carried out under a requested move. Great Schism was originally a broad concept article that then became a disambiguation page in 2004 when the East–West Schism article was created. So there has never been a move discussion before. StAnselm (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Subordination[edit]

It is claimed that the theology of subordination was first introduced by Arius fourth century. Patristic evidence suggest that this statement is incorrect. It is excepted by most apologist that Tertullian ( 180 AD ) the so named father of the Trinity ,was indeed a subordinate. Tertullian trinity was different to todays revamped version formulated by Athanasius. The trinity was articulated by Tertullian as Christ being a separate unique entity as wisdom personified (Proverbs 8: 22-33- 1 Colossians 1:15 ) hence was externalized / begotten from his fathers bosom as God of God incarnate. Tertullian's subordinate theology suggest that Christ prior to his externalization was a made divine embryo in gestation awaiting to be begotten / sired into Mary's womb.( 1John 1:20 ) Arius was to extract that embryo prior to its time and in effect have Christ born ( spiritually ) prior to his appointed time. This premature birth made Christ a spirit creature Hence as JW's teach "a god" The Arian controversy has changed entirely the original concept that Christ was made and although fully functionary in his fathers omniscience was not yet perceived in our time frame ( last days ) as the logos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.24.248 (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion that members of this Wikiproject may be interested in. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew and the content dispute concerns when the Gospel of Matthew was written. Feel free to add a new section for your initial comments or drop me a line on my talk page and I will add it for you. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)