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 (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)

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 (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)


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.( 1 Peter 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 (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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


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)

Looking for an article[edit]

Huh. I found it by myself. Anyone else think "List of names for the biblical nameless" is a really clunky, unintuitive title? Use of "nameless" as a collective noun in an article title is probably bad form, and I shouldn't have to remember an unnamed biblical figure off the top of my head, go to their article, go to "What links here", and then Ctrl+F for "list" just to find the page I'm looking for. (>_<) I'd RM the page, but I don't know to where I'd like to see it moved, and I'd like to ask here what other people think a better name would be. (Or should I go somewhere less active but more appropriate? I came here rather than there because I wanted a quick answer to my initial question.) The current list of redirects provides only a few, pretty abysmal options... Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Earl Wilbur Blighton[edit]

Electrical engineer died 1974, founded his own religion, doesn't have a bio. See Talk:Holy Order of Mans. Anyone care to wade in with a combine harvester and prune this down to a small clump of reliable sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD which may be of some interest[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Saturday Comes Sunday (2nd nomination). Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)