Talk:Christianity

Archives

Archived discussions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Origins of Christianity

This is being reverted because its said that is being presented as fact. But it IS fact. Name some reputable scholarship which would deny the below connections in the origin and development of what became Christianity. I suggest you click on each link of the mystery cults listed along with their esoteric teachings, all of which have been shown to have contributed to the doctrines found in Christianity. Each section on Wiki has a section with references making this point. Its fair to mention each one here. My approach was to mention them all as being roots of the Christian religion's origins. These are statments of facts according to modern scholarship on the questions. Again what we see is simply reverting all my work because its secular in nature and not from a Christian point of view (note its not anti-Christian). 64.121.40.153 10:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is not the consensus about origins of Christianity. At best, as I said before, it is one theory, though how widely it is held today is another matter. But you worded it as it would be factual and uncontroversial, e.g. "the major Christian doctrines emerged ..." - no "may have emerged", no "scholars argue" etc. That is clearly against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Also, calling those that disagree with your edits names does not help anyone here. Str1977 10:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is the dominant theory that the majority hold to as factual. Infact, I do not know one reputable scholar who would deny these xian precursors. However, if your issues are that minor, i.e. only language such as "may," then why not make those word choice adjustments as you suggest here, instead of reverting the whole section, and getting rid of everything? As it stands now, the supresion of secular thought, and the current language--ironically lacking the very same neutral language regarding Jesus that you say makes my contribution NPOV, is what we have now, and thus is NPOV. FOr example, my inclusion of the word "purported" in "centered on the stories it teaches about the purported life, and actions of Jesus....is reverted. By your own logic, if you're consistent, is POV. Surely you are aware of that the Xian teaching about the life and actions of Jesus are highly doubtful as historical, and thus should be qualified with appropriate language accordingly. But, I guess this is pro-Christian so we see the double standard being enforced. 64.121.40.153 10:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't see that it is the dominant theory, at least not this extreme version you included. As for my issues, they are not only wording and NPOV, as I don't think your version is accurate at all. But if I suppose that for a moment, there are at least wording issues. "Purported" on the other hand is one of them weasel words, which seem neutral but in fact imply that what is being said is not only not necessarily true but in fact false. Another way to make the first sentence NPOV would be an addition like "as recounted in the New Testament". We had this before but it somehow got lost down the line. I will reinsert it now. As for your qualifications on the New Testament: I am well aware of the issue, but speaking as a historian, I cannot agree with on your conclusions that the NT is more doubtful than many other historical sources. Of course, we have do Quellenkritik and consider alternative sources as well, but the NT's books are still the most reliable sources on that complex. Str1977 11:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the word "purported", and had problems with it. Also, I find it illogical to imply that just because the word "Christians" first appears in Acts 11:26, Christianity first appeared then. People, things, and concepts exist before they are given names. AnnH ^(talk) 11:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 is absolutely correct; the theory that "mystery religions" were the roots of Christian doctrines is far from being a dominant theory. Were they an influence? Probably. But they were not nearly as important as the proposed edit implies. There is also no "pro-Christian" standard being applied; the proposed changes are wholly inaccurate, pure and simple. KHM03 16:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree its not logical regarding the quoting of Acts for when the word "Christians" first appears. I didnt add that, it was part of the original article, which I left unchanged. I've removed that in my most recent edit that restores the earlier information while addressing the use of language that states it as a fact, now changed to "believed to be by some scholars," "influenced," etc. Let the reader go to those links and learn from themselves these undisputed elements in the formation of the origin in Christianities teachings. To supress this can only be an example of an anti-historical stance. Btw, The NT is a book of faith and not a reliable historical source. 64.121.40.153 23:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Despite the changes of language my work is simply reverted on the pretext of POV. I wonder what next will be the rationale to advance a purely religious perspective, suppressing valuable understandings from secular scholarship regarding the origins of this religion. It appears too tabboo to entertain such knowlege for if followers of the faith understand the historical basis for their beliefs it my harm their faith? This type of POV pushing that suppresses knowlege is in keeping with the type of religious intolerance we seen in history, but is no place for an encylopedia. 64.121.40.153 00:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim POV. I claimed unsourced accusations and wiggle words, both of which are significantly different from POV. Jpers36 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

64.121.40.153, your recent edit summary claimed "rv vandalism/suppression of agreed changes in talk page"...but there was no vandalism and no agreed changes on the talk page. Please watch your summaries for accuracy. Thanks...KHM03 00:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiping out work of agreed changes from the talk page, without justification or any participatin on the talk page, despite notice, and over and over is a vandalism. My summary is accurate. 64.121.40.153 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

There were no "agreed changes"; Jpers36 acted appropriately. Please be more accurate in your edit summaries. Thanks...KHM03 00:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick review reveals that Str1977, AnnH, and myself all opposed your proposed changes, and only you supported them. Please be more accurate. Thanks...KHM03 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If the objection stated here was one of lanugage use, and I make the changes addressing the objected language, then this constitutes an agreement I was willing to make. I see no ohter objections stated, so as I could remedy those or discuss them. Therefore the changes I effected were the results of the ostensive agreement from this page. Your quick review is perhaps too quick. My comments are accurate. If not please be specific with other problems that have been stated which have escaped my attention. 64.121.40.153 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The objections were concerning your theory that Christian doctrine came from mystery religions. There was no agreement regarding the addition of your theory; you added it anyway and claimed agreement. There was / is no agreement. It was the content of your proposal which was opposed, not merely the wording. If you wish to add that theory, obviously, gain consensus. Thanks...KHM03 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

ANON, are you representing that there are similarities between Christianity and other groups, or that the others were the "ancestor/father" of Christianity. I can support the Greek/Plato connection for early Christain beliefs, but I would strongly resistant that Christianity was the product of the others. Also, what are you defining as Christianity? Is that 4th century Christianity or that taught by Christ? I see a distinction between the two; without any intended offense to our traditional Christians. Storm Rider 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the scholarship clearly backs up my contentions that the mystery cults were the forerunners of the early Christians. This information is suppressed by Christians--but it is true nonetheless. And, I did include references. The “weasle words” (if I understand the the term) were the very things that were said to be required to make my inclusion acceptable and NPOV. Ironic that now they are used to suppress it, yet again. Please tell me which “weasle words” you object to and we can fix them.

About citing sources---I did. Notice that each of the mytery cults I listed links to Wiki, and each of the respective articles substanciates the point. But, I’ll list them here:

Therapeutae--its stated a fact on the Wiki article as the “Forerunners of early Christian monastic orders.” This is not disputed. Next, the Essenes: “The Essenes were a religious sect of Judaism, of which it is Jesus was thought to be a member of, and which John the Baptist is widely regarded to be a prime example of an Essene.” Enough said. The Gnostics: This one needs some wiggle words. From the linked Wiki article: “The ultimate foundational elements of gnosticism are pre-Christian. That said, the exact origins of Gnosticism are a subject of dispute amongst scholars: some think Gnosticism is fundamentally pagan in origin, but has adopted a Christian veneer; others trace its origin to Judaism; yet others think it derives from Jesus, and is a development of his teaching that is arguably as valid as the orthodox one. Most scholars accept that orthodox Christianity and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but emerged alongside it, out of some of the same sources. Many Gnostic sects were made up of Christians who embraced mystical theories concerning the nature of Jesus or the Christ which was increasingly at variance with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith as it developed.: Next, Dionysus: According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977) and the American scholar Camille Paglia, a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology,” and the wiki page itself, this mystery cult is likewise linked. Infact Paglia writes succinctly about pagan mystery religion and Christianity, and I quote, “Christianity was a development of Dionysian mystery religion which paradoxically tried to suppress nature in favor of a transcendental other world." 13. Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New York: Random House, 1991) 25.

I hope these suffice as adequate sourced material. Somehow I know no matter what I do, prove, or change, the Christian slant will supress all secular scohlarship as POV if it counters their religious conception which is ahistorical at its core. To shed too much light on historical context and material basis for a belief system is to demysify it and bring understanding for how these ideas were formed. Such is counter to the devine, inspired nature that Christian faith depends on--thus its supressed and evidence of POV pushing. 64.121.40.153 01:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I left out the last mystery cult, Mithranism. This can be found both in Ernest Renan, in The Origins of Christianity, and Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), which states that Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. However, Larson believes that the Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as Pythagoreans. And that Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name.

“The resemblances between the two churches were so striking as to impress even the minds of antiquity” (Cumont, 193). From their common Zoroastrian sources, Mithraism first held that all souls pre-existed in the ethereal regions, and inhabited a body upon birth. Life then becomes a great struggle between good and evil, spirit and body, the children of light versus the children of darkness (identical to Pythagoreanism). All souls were to be judged by Mithra (represented as a bull) with the Elect going to heaven, and the earthly and evil being annihilated in a great battle. Mithraism divided the human race into three classes: the spiritual Elect, the wicked, and those who try to be good but can't seem to overcome evil. The Elect go straight to heaven, while the good-intentioned wait until judgment to be resurrected, where the wicked will be destroyed. Both Christianity and Mithraism prided themselves in brotherhood and organized their members as church congregations. Both religions purified themselves through baptism, and each participated in the same type of sacrament, bread and wine. Mithra was born in a cave; a cave is likewise the setting for the nativity of Jesus in the widely-read and influential Gospel of James, which though not canonical is the earliest surviving document attesting the veneration of Mary and claiming her continuing virginity. Both nativities were celebrated on December 25th, and each savior was visited by shepherds with gifts. Both Mithraism and Christianity considered Sunday their holy day, despite early Christianity observing the Jewish Sabbath for centuries. Many have noted that the title of Pope is found in Mithraic doctrine and seemingly prohibited in Christian doctrine. The words Peter (rock) and mass (sacrament) have original significance in Mithraism. Both Mithraism and early Christianity considered abstinence, celibacy, and self-control to be among their highest virtues. Both had similar beliefs about the world, destiny, heaven and hell, and the immortality of the soul. Their conceptions of the battles between good and evil were almost identical, with Christianity adopting millennial epochs that were integral to Mithraism from Zoroastrianism. “They both admitted to the existence of a heaven inhabited by beautiful ones…and a hell peopled by demons situate in the bowels of earth.” (Cumont, 191) Both religions placed a flood at the beginning of history, and both believed in revelation as key to their doctrine. Both awaited the last judgment and resurrection of the dead after the final conflagration of the world. Christ and Mithra were both referred to directly as the "Logos" (Larson 184). When inducted into the degree of Leo, he was purified with honey, and baptised, not with water, but with fire, as John the Baptist declared that his successor would baptise. After this second baptism, initiates were considered "participants," and they received the sacrament of bread and wine commemorating Mithra's banquet at the conclusion of his labors (Larson 190). Mitrha was perceived as the the persian savior, whose cult was the leading rival of Christianity in Rome, and was more successful than Christianity for the first four centuries of the "Christian" era. In 307 A.D. the emperor officially designated Mithra "protector of the Empire."1

That fact that Christians appeared to have copied many details of the Mithraic mystery-religion, was was explained by Christians with the argument that the devil had anticipated the true faith by imitating it before Christ's birth. Some resemblance between Christianity and Mithraism were so close that even St. Augustine declared the priests of Mithra worshiped the same deity as they did.2 Mithra was born on the 25th of December, called "Birthday of the Unconquered Sun," which was finally taken over by Christians in the 4th century A.D. as the birthday of Christ.3 Some said Mithra sprang from an incestuous union between the sun god and his own mother, just as Jesus, who was God, was born of the Mother of God. Some claimed Mithra's mother was a mortal virgin. Others said Mithra had no mother, but was miraculously born of a female Rock, the petra genetix, fertilized by the Heavenly Father's phallic lightning.4 Mithra's birth was witnessed by shepherds and by magi who brought gifts to his sacred birth-cave of the Rock.5 Mithra performed the usual assortments of miracles raising the dead, healing the sick, making the blind see and the lame walk, casting out devils. As a Peter, son of the petra, he carried the keys of the kingdom of heaven6 His triumph and ascension to heaven were celebrated at the spring equinox (Easter), when the sun rises toward its apogee. Before returning to heaven, Mithra celebrated a Last Supper with his twelve disciples, who represented the twelve signs of the zodiac. In memory of this, his worshipers partook of a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross.7 This was one of seven Mithraic sacraments, the models for the Christian's seven sacraments. 8 It was called mized, Latin missa, English mass. Mithra's image was buried in a rock tomb, the same sacred cave that represented his Mother's womb. He was withdrawn from it and said to live again.9 Like early Christianity, Mithraism was an ascetic, anti-female religion. Its priesthood consisted of celibate men only. 10 Women were to enter Mithraic temples.11 The women of Mithraic families had nothing to do with the men's cult, but attended services of the Great Mother in their own temples of Isis, Diana, or Juno.12 To eliminate the female principle from their creation myth, Mithraists replaced the Mother of All Living in the primal garden of paradise (Pairidaeza) with the named Sole Ceated. Instead of Eve, this bull was the partner of the first man. All creatures were born from the bull's blood. Yet the bull's birth-giving was oddly female-imitative. The animal was castrated and sacrificed, and its blood was delivered to the moon for magical fructification, the moon being the source of woman's magic lunar "blood of life" that produced real children on earth.13 Persians have been called the Puritans of the heathen world. They developed Mithraism out of an earlier Aryan religion that was not so puritanical or so exclusively male-oriented.14 Mithra seems to have been the Indo-Iranian sun god Mitra, or Mitravaruna, one of the twelve zodiacal sons of the of the Infinity-goddess Aditi. Another of Aditi's sons was Aryaman, eponymous ancestor of "Aryans," whom the Persians transformed into Ahriman, the Great Serpent of Darkness, Mithra's enemy.15 Early on, there seems to have been a feminine Mithra. Herdotus said the the Persians used to have a sky-goddess Mitra, the same as Mylitta, Assyria's Great Mother. 16 Lydian combined Mithra with his archaic spouse Anahita an androgynous Mithra-Anahita, identified with Sabazious-Anaitis, the Serpent and Dove of Anatolian mystery cults.17 Anahita was the Mother of Waters, traditional spouse of the solar god whom she bore, loved and swallowed up. She was identified with the Anatlian Great Goddess Ma. Mithra was naturally coupled with her, as her opposite, a spirit of fire, light and the sun.18 Her "element', water overwhelmed the world in the primordial flood, when one man built an ark and saved himself, together with his cattle, according to Mithraic myth19 The story seems to have been based on the Hindu Flood of Manu, transmitted through Persia and Babylonian scriptures to appear in late, rather corrupt version in the Old Testament. What began in water would end in fire, according to Mithraic eschatology. The great battle between the forces of light and darkness in the Last Days would destroy the earth with its upheavals and burnings. Virtuous ones who fallowed the teachings of the Mithraic priesthood would join the spirits of light and be saved. Sinful ones who followed other teachings would be cast into hell with Ahriman and the fallen angels. The Christian notion of salvation was almost wholly a product of this Persian eschatology, adopted by Semitic eremites and sun-cultists like the Essenes, and by the Roman military men who thought the rigid discipline and the vivid battle-imagery of Mithraism appropriate for warriors. Under emperors like Julian and Commodus, Mithra became patron of Roman armies. 20 After extensive contact with Mithraism, Christians also began to describe themselves as soldiers for Christ; to call their savior light of the World. Helios the Rising Sun, and Sun of Righteousness; to celebrate their feats on Sun-day rather than the Jewish Sabbath; to claim their savior's death was marked by an eclipse of the sun; and to adopt the seven Mithratic sacraments. Like Mithraists, Christians practiced baptism to ascend after death through the planetary spheres to the highest heaven, while the wicked (anabaptized) would be dragged down to darkness.21 Mithra's cave-temple on the Vatican Hill was seized by Christians in 376 A.D. 22 Christian bishops Rome pre-empted even the Mithraic high priest's title of Pater Patrum, which became Papa, or Pope.34 Mithraism entered into many doctrines of Manichean Christianity and continued to influence its old rival for over a thousand years.24 The mithraic festival of Epiphany, marking the arrival of sun-priests or Magi at the Saviors birthplace, was adopted by the Christian church only as late as 813 A.D. 25 It is probable that Christianity emphasized common features that attracted Mithra followers, perhaps the crucifix appealed to those Mithra followers who had crosses already branded on their foreheads. In art, the halo was a well-known depiction of Mithra, a true sun god, but which also depicts Christ in the same way. However, the similiarities were an embarrassment, and differences such as star gazing were persecuted as heresy. Trypho wrote that “Justin Martyr declared that in a certain cave near Bethlehem…Mary brought forth the Christ…those who presided over the mysteries of Mithras were stirred up by the devil to say that in a place called among them a cave, they were initiated by them” (LXXVIII). Tertullian seems to have feared the parallels between Mithraism and Christianity the most, demonizing Mithraism as a perverted truth planted by the devil. References 1. Legge 2. 271; Angus, 168 2. Reiach, 73 3. J.H. Smith, D.C.P., 146; Campbell, M.I.,33 4. de Riencourt, 135. 5. H. Smith, D.C.P., 146; Campbell, M.M., 131. 6. H Smith, 129 7. Hooke, S.P.,89; Cumont,M.M.,160. 8. James,250. 9. H,Smith, 130,201 10. Legge 2, 261. 11.Lederer.36. 12 Angus, 205. 13. Campbell, Oc.M., 204 14. Knight, D.W.P., 63. 15 O'Flaherty, 339. 16. Larousse, 314 17. Cumont,M.M., 17. 18. Cumont, O.R.R.P.,54,65. 19. Cumont, M.M., 138 20. Cumont, M.M., 87-89. 21. Cumont,M.M., 144-45. 22. J.H.Smith, D.C.P., 146 23. H. Smith, 252. 24. Cumont, O.R.R.P., 154. 25. Brewter,55

64.121.40.153 01:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Giovanni

Anon user (Giovanni)is correct in my view. On what basis are this contributions now being supressed? He has met earlier objections, it seems to me. Consensus might not be possible here as a result of the heavily pro-Christian editors here, but what matters is consensus in the secular academic world, which Giovanni's inclusions reflect. If your lack of consensus is based on legitimate objections, please state them. Otherwise, I vote that this souced knowlege no longer be supressed. 69.107.7.138 02:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My first objection is minor, namely that the early Christians did not use the "Hebrew Bible," they almost exclusively used the Greek Septuagint. The Jews did too, until they first tried a couple other Greek translations, then finally managed to revive widespread use of a Hebrew Bible. My next object to the paragraph quoted at the top of this section is the idea that a church hierarchy eventually emerged, and pulled together various ideas in order to broaden Christianity's appeal. It is well known that the basic church structure was established in the first century and maintained as Christianity expanded. Cumont's work on Mithraism is nearly 100 years old; today it seems more likely that many of Mithraism's features actually postdate Christianity's, making it more likely that it was Mithraism that borrowed from Christianity. Further, as I've already pointed out in Talk:Mithraism, many of the alleged similarities listed at that article are simply not true of Christianity at all; an example is the suggestion that Christianity started out being anti-female or even exclusively male. Many of the saints and martyrs from the early period, were women, including evangelists. Wesley \

It would greatly facility discussion if all the anon users would use registered usernames, so that we can address you by name rather than number. (For instance, which anon user is "Giovanni", and how do you know which IP Giovanni used, User:69.107.7.138? I honestly can't tell who you think is correct.) It would also help if you would assume good faith and discuss the edits themselves, not your fellow editors. Wesley 04:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I worked on the entry to address all of your points, Wesley. Let me know if you have any other objections. Btw, Giovanni lists his name above and is .40.153 My name is Mika.

"With an estimated 2.3 billion adherents, Christianity is arguably the world's largest religion. Its origins are intertwined with Judaism, with which it shares much sacred text and early history, specifically to Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), which many Christians call the Old Testament.Template:Fn The early Christians heavily relied on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the west as the Septuagint. Christianity is considered an Abrahamic religion, along with Judaism and Islam (see Judeo-Christo-Islamic). While initially Christianity grew out of Judaism (using Jewish scriptures as justification of their own teachings and scriptures), the major Christian doctrines are beleived to have also emerged out of the mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East around 2000 years ago. Early Christian fathers such as Clement of Alexander and Origen mention the continuity between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, the inner mystery teachings, and Christianity. Other scholars such as Camille Paglia have noted that Christianity was a development of the Dionysian mystery religion.

In its early years, what came to be called Christianity may have existed as a variety of mystery cults, limited to a small number of people and expounding esoteric teachings. Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and perhaps Mithraism which was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. The basic church hierarchy developed in the first century and it is fairly probable that they emphasized common features to attract follower. In doing so many of these same mystery teachings were brought out into the open, and redressed in often a literal interpretation. The early church was called "catholic", which means universal. It claimed to be for all, and combined many of the elements of its forrunners: Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and various mystery teachings. Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas explains the often complicated and confusing similarities Christian doctrine share with a variety of pagan teachings." updated 69.107.7.138 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

69.107.7.138 05:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Mika

Thank you for addressing those, Mika. Another general concern that I think others have already raised is the use of passive voice to express opinions or speculation, without attributing that speculation to anyone. Not every such sentence needs a full footnote to a book and page number, but it should at least say that "some/many/most scholars/critics/Christians/whoever think that..." in places that now say things like "...doctrines are believed..." for instance. Using passive voice to avoid attributing an idea or opinion to anyone at all is one example of "weasel words," something that can be hard to avoid. But atributing the idea, and in general using active voice instead of passive, is a good way to strengthen any article. Other parts of the above are clearly speculation, but speculation by whom? For instance, "it is fairly probably that..." and the final line saying that the potpourri of ideas explains the confusion etc. Other theories also explain the confusion, so why list only this one without attributing it to anyone in general or in particular? Wesley \

Regarding the word "catholic," you have the right definition, but not necessarily the right conclusion drawn from the literal definition. At least some early fathers used the word "catholic" to describe the faith or set of doctrines that they taught, particularly Irenaeus, and to differentiate them from the hodge-podge of various other religions that bore no more similarity to Christianity than to use some of the same names. Wesley \

Regarding the much later section about the list of persecutions, it's particularly important to note that the persecution of pagans and Jews was a two-way street for quite a while, especially in Alexandria. The pagans also had a brief 'revival' during the reign of Justinian the Apostate during which he tried to favor both pagans and Jews over Christians. If a detailed list of such is necessary, it should include both directions; such detail might be better in a History of Christianity or other such sub-article though. Wesley \

Again about Mithraism, I believe current thinking place their texts no earlier than mid second century, while the gospels and other Christian stories of Christ's birth etc. date no later than the end of the first century. Therefore it's more likely that Mithraism borrowed some ideas from Christianity, if any borrowing between them took place at all. Regarding gnosticism, it's at least as likely that gnosticism borrowed a few Christian names to attach to its aeons without really changing its ideas, as Christianity borrowed from gnosticism. Most 'gnostic Christians' tried to reject Judaism's influence, strongly suggesting that they were'nt well connected or descended from any of Jesus' Jewish followers.

Wesley 05:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mika and Wesley for making this better. And, thanks everyone else for not instantly reverting but allowing this to be improved. We are making progress. In light of Wesley's comments regarding the current thinking of Mithraism, I have made further changes. The current text change now reads:

"There is much speculation that Christian beliefs were influenced by Mithraism which was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris."

I agree with your comments about use of passive voice vs an active voice with attribution. I'll go back and see what I can do to correct this and I hope others can continue to improve this section as well.

I did not make the changes to the Persecution section below, but your comments make sense to me. Maybe someone else can work on that section.

64.121.40.153 09:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I have been reading various articles on Dionysus, Osiris, and Mithraism as it relates to Christianity for most of the day. My conclusion is that this article will turn into a rather lenthy discussion with references to the respective historians and their views on the evolution of Christianity. Based upon what I have read it certainly is not the prevailing thought of "scholars" that these three "religions" were the forefather of Christianity. To swallow that pill, the underlying premise is that Jesus was simply a fabrication, a melding of different religions of the day; however, the individual was not historical. That is the prevailing thought of several of the scholars cited above. Does it belong in the article? YES. However, it must be balanced with all of the scholars who oppose this research. It will be a long article, a little on the dry for most, but it will be accurate. Storm Rider 10:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Strom Rider. I'd be interested to see a reputable published scholar that discounts these attributed influences of early Christianity. I find it to be the prevailing thought among secular scholarship on the question, as cited. I agree that it raises questions about the stories of Jesus as described in the Bible. But, the bible is a book of faith and so the historical Jesus is probably quite different than the Christian one which incorporates myths that are part of the religious faith and consitent with its origins as described. No disrespect intended, ofcourse. However, this issue of the historcity of Jesus need not be mentioned here, since the title says Jesus "according to the New Testiment" which is a book of faith. Moreover, there are already many articles devoted to this issue alone: Historicity of Jesus, and Historical Jesus, and Names and titles of Jesus, and Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and Jesus-Myth. 64.121.40.153 11:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

That, Giovanni, is one of the problems often encountered in such discussions. YOu say the Bible is a book of faith, and you are right: it is. But it is also a historical work in two senses:

1) it gives the history of the people of Israel (of course seen from their perspective and through the lens of faith - and not all books of the Bible are concerned with history)

2) it is a historical source just like other sources. Of course we need to do Quellenkitik but I object to any singeling out of the Biblöe as something different or inferior.

Now, regarding the real Jesus (I mean the one that lived and preached in the 1st century) it is reasonable to look at the sources avaiable. We will get at a "historical Jesus" - this is not identical with the "real Jesus", as the historical craft will not necesarily answer all questions and tell as anything we'd like to know, but at least it will provide a solid basis. The nEw Testament happens to be the best source for the where, when and what of Jesus. I object to dismissing the NT as a sources only to fuill the "void" with speculation.

I not with gladnesss, Giovanni, that you intend no disrespect and I believe you. I just wanted to point this out. I agree, that the issues of the "historical Jesus" need not be discussed in our context. Str1977 11:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made further changes to improve the section, based on Wesley's helpful comments. In particular, notice that the Catholic word use is removed, and some sections reworded. I'm not sure about the last sentence I reworked to wrap it up: "Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas combined from Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and the various mystery teachings makes the origins of Christian doctrine one whose complexity continues to shroud it in mystery." The idea im trying to communicate in the sentence is that the origins are complex and are often not understood or known, even among practioners. Ofcourse, I want to do it with NPOV language. The section in whole as it currently stands for further scrutiny:

"With an estimated 2.3 billion adherents, Christianity is arguably the world's largest religion. Its origins are intertwined with Judaism, with which it shares much sacred text and early history, specifically to Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible), which many Christians call the Old Testament.1 The early Christians heavily relied on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the west as the Septuagint. Christianity is considered an Abrahamic religion, along with Judaism and Islam (see Judeo-Christo-Islamic). While initially Christianity grew out of Judaism (using Jewish scriptures as justification of their own teachings and scriptures), the major Christian doctrines are beleived to have also emerged out of the mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East around 2000 years ago. Early Christian fathers such as Clement of Alexander and Origen mention the continuity between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, the inner mystery teachings, and Christianity. Other scholars such as Camille Paglia have noted that Christianity was a development of the Dionysian mystery religion.

In its early years, what came to be called Christianity may have existed as a variety of mystery cults, limited to a small number of people and expounding esoteric teachings. Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and there is much speculation that Christian beliefs were influenced by Mithraism which was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name. According to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. The basic church hierarchy developed in the first century and it is fairly probable that they emphasized common features to attract followers. In doing so many of these mystery teachings were brought out into the open, and redressed with often a literal interpretation. Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas combined from Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and the various mystery teachings makes the origins of Christian doctrine one whose complexity continues to shroud it in mystery." 64.121.40.153 11:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I disagree with the entire "mystery religion" thing. Aside from the fact that it's inaccurate (reason enough to not include it), it's unsourced. Clement & Origen commenting on Greek philosophy is not an endorsement on their part of the "mystery religion" theory...that's a separate school of thought. Paglia and Larson? If we're going to make this kind of claim, if it is true and supported by "most scholarship" (also completely untrue...and unsourced), surely there are dozens of mainstream historians we could cite. Let's do that first. KHM03 11:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, untrue, and you have failed to make a case for your contentions. I have already cited sources, above. The original had sources, too, with links. Apparently they are simply ignored. Meanwhile you revert the additions, even though they are currently being improved on the main page by many users in accordance with specifics raised here--- and already had the dispute heading.

Yes, these are all seperate schools of thought. No one is saying they are identical. Otherwise why would they have different names. That would be assinine. What it does say is that there is a influence of from these schools of thought, as is often the case is the evolution of ideas, and in particular the ones I mention--the mystery cults--are the ones believed by many scholars to be the ones that did that in development of what became known as Christian religious ideas. I do not make the claim that scholarship is uniform or difinitive in these matters, nor that in some cases its little more than speculation. But, the consensus has it that these influences are probable and they offer the best explanation to date for an understanding of the historical development from a naturalist historical perspective of the religious conceptions and doctrines under light. Do you propose an alternative theory that you'd like to include, or do you just not want any such discussion to be presented, which I might add is an essential part in understanding any line of philosophy, religious or otherwise.

But, again, I will cite my sources, which would suffice alone, but on top of that I'll include dozens of other sources which support these claims. And, I will re-insert the section so that it can continue to be improved by myself and others, and keep the NPOV tag until this is settled.

According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Osiris was the first savior, and all soteriology in the region borrowed this religion, directly and indirectly, including Mithraism and Christianity, from an Osirian-Dionysian influence. Therapeutae--its stated a fact on the Wiki article as the “Forerunners of early Christian monastic orders.” This does not even appear to be disputed. Next, the Essenes: “The Essenes were a religious sect of Judaism, of which it is Jesus was thought to be a member of, and which John the Baptist is widely regarded to be a prime example of an Essene.” I'd say being a member is pretty good indication of influence, eh? The Gnostics, also linked Wiki article: “The ultimate foundational elements of gnosticism are pre-Christian. That said, the exact origins of Gnosticism are a subject of dispute amongst scholars: some think Gnosticism is fundamentally pagan in origin, but has adopted a Christian veneer; others trace its origin to Judaism. Most scholars accept that orthodox Christianity and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but emerged alongside it, out of some of the same sources. Many Gnostic sects were made up of Christians who embraced mystical theories concerning the nature of Jesus or the Christ which was increasingly at variance with the teachings of orthodox Christian faith as it developed." Dionysus: According to Martin A. Larson in The Story of Christian Origins (1977) and the American scholar Camille Paglia, a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology,” and the wiki page itself, this mystery cult is likewise linked. Infact Paglia writes succinctly about pagan mystery religion and Christianity, and I quote, “Christianity was a development of Dionysian mystery religion which paradoxically tried to suppress nature in favor of a transcendental other world." 13. Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson (New York: Random House, 1991) 25. Mithranism: This can be found both in Ernest Renan, in The Origins of Christianity, and Martin A. Larson,in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), which states that Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. However, Larson believes that the Essenes were Jewish Pythagoreans, whose members not only gave birth to Christianity as Essenes, but were directly influenced by Zoroastrian doctrine as Pythagoreans. And that Mithraism, an established but exclusive sect devoted to social justice, was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being disposed of in name.

Francis Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, From 330 B.C. to 330 A.D. (1914), reprinted as two volumes bound as one, University Books New York, 1964. LC Catalog 64-24125. The Therapeutae and Christianity http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0120PhiloJudaeus.html Vermes, Geza and Martin D. Goodman, eds. The Essenes according to the Classical Sources. Sheffield: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies and JSOT Press, 1989. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook.html Dr Constantine Scouteris, "The Therapeutae of Philo and the Monks as Therapeutae according to Pseudo-Dionysius": comparing the Therapeutae with the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Golb, Norman. 1985. "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran". Scribner Sanders, E.P., 1992. "Judaism: Practice & Belief 63BCE - 66CE" Minneapolis: Fortress Schiffman, Lawrence H. 1991. "From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple & Rabbinic Judaism". Ktav Publishing House Smith, Enid S., Ph.D., 1959, The Essenes Who Changed Churchianity The Essenes are an important part of H. Rider Haggard's Pearl-Maiden: A Tale of the Fall of Jerusalem. [1] Bentley Layton's introduction to The Gnostic Scriptures, a translation of the texts found at Nag Hammadi. Layton, Bentley, ed. The Gnostic Scriptures ISBN 0385478437 Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels Robinson, James M., ed. The Nag Hammadi Library in English ISBN 0060669357 Robinson, James M., 1979 "The discovery of the Nag Hammadi codices," in Biblical Archaeology vol. 42, pp206–224. The definitive account of the discovery of the Nag Hammadi cache. The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1987), Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Matthew Black and H.H. Rowley, ed., Revised edition, NY:Nelson 1982, section 607b. Gibbon: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-49 CHRISTIANITY IN HISTORY General. F. L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Chris- tian Church (Oxford and New York, 1957). Adolf von Harnack, Outlines of the History of Dogma, 3rd ed. trans. Neil Buchanan, 7 vols. (London, 1894-99). K. S. Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, 7 vols. (New York, 1938-45). http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=280&letter=G&search=gnosticism The Early Church. N. H. Baynes, “Constantine the Great and the Christian Church,” Proceedings of the British Acad- emy, 15 (1929), 341-443. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Vol. I of The Pelican History of the Church (Harmondsworth, 1967; London, 1968). Jean Daniélou and Henri Marrou, The First Six Hundred Years, Vol. I of The Christian Centuries: A New History of the Catholic Church, ed. L. J. Rogier, et al. (London and New York, 1964). E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cam- bridge and New York, 1965). Louis Duchesne, Early History of the Christian Church..., trans. Claude Jenkins (from the 4th French edition), 3 vols. (London, 1920-24). W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church... (Oxford and New York, 1952). A. H. M. Jones, Constantine and the Conversion of Europe (London, 1948; New York, 1949). J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 2nd ed. (London and New York, 1960); idem, Early Christian Doctrines, 4th ed. (London, 1968). D. Knowles, Christian Monasticism (New York and Toronto, 1969). M. J. Lagrange, Histoire ancienne du Canon du Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1933). Has Lietzmann, A History of the Early Church, trans. B. L. Woolf, 4 vols. in 2 (New York, 1961). A. Momigliano, ed., The Conflict be- tween Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (Oxford and New York, 1963). James M. Robinson, A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (London and Naperville, Ill., 1959). Albert Schweitzer, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (1906), trans. Mont- gomery as The Quest of the Historical Jesus (London, 1910). The Middle Ages. A. Fliche, La Réforme grégorienne et la Reconquête chrétienne, 1057-1125, Vol. 8 of Histoire de http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gnostic.htm Dillon, John (1977). "Numenius of Apamea" in The Middle Platonists (Cornell University Press). Filoramo, Giovanni. A History of Gnosticism, tr. Anthony Alcock (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 1990, 1992). Hegel, G.W.F. "The Gnostics" in Lectures on the History of Philosophy, vol 2. "Plato and the Platonists," tr. E.S. Haldane and Frances H. Simson (University of Nebraska Press; Bison Books Edition 1995). Jonas, Hans (1958, 2001). The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity (Boston: Beacon Press). Layton, Bentley (1987). The Gnostic Scriptures (Doubleday: The Anchor Bible Reference Library). Plato. Laws, tr. Trevor J. Saunders, in Plato: Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing 1997). Plato. Timaeus, tr. Donald J. Zeyl, in Plato: Complete Works. Plotinus. The Enneads, tr. A.H. Armstrong, in 7 volumes (Harvard: Loeb Classical Library 1966). Ricoeur, Paul. The Conflict of Interpretations (Northwestern University Press 1974). Rudolph, Kurt. Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, tr. Robert McLachlan Wilson (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark Ltd. 1984). Segal, Robert A. (ed.) The Gnostic Jung (Princeton University Press 1992). Barnstone, Willis (1984 ed.) The Other Bible (Harper San Francisco). Bultmann, Rudolph (1956). Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting (New York: Meridian Books). Fideler, David (1993). Jesus Christ, Sun of God: Ancient Cosmology and Early Christian Symbolism (Wheaton, Illinois: Quest Books). Pagels, Elaine (1975). The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Trinity Press). Williams, Michael Allen. Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument For Dismantling A Dubious Category (Princeton University Press 1996). http://www-relg-studies.scu.edu/facstaff/murphy/courses/sctr026/therapeutae.htm from the Religious Studies Department Secr 26 Gender & Early Christiany 64.121.40.153 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I challenge the use of Origen and Tertullian to support the idea that mystery religions were incorporated into Christianity. I also dispute the idea that the church hierarchy "emphasized common features to attract followers." For the first few centuries, being a church hierarch was a good way to get yourself killed, tortured or banished; these people were not marketers, in fact much of their appeal came from choosing death rather than compromise of their beliefs. Most surviving records of the mystery religions have those religions being condemned by orthodox Christians, not admired. And as I've said before, the dates suggest that any borrowing was from Christianity into Mithraism. Wesley 17:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Mithraism influence, please see here. KHM03 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Couple of points:

1. WP:CITE specifically states "Wikipedia articles should not use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Wikilinks are not a substitute for sources." In other words, Giovanni cannot use WP articles to back up his assertions, although he can use sources cited in other articles.

2. "The Essenes were a religious sect of Judaism, of which it is Jesus was thought to be a member of [sic], and which John the Baptist is widely regarded to be a prime example of an Essene. Where to begin, apart from this being atrocious grammar. First, "was thought to be a member of" and "widely regarded to be" — by whom? Unatributed speculation is no basis for concluding that this is historical fact. In fact, there is NO historical evidence that either Jesus or John the Baptist was an Essene. It's an interesting hypothesis, but basically speculation based on some ritual and theological similarities. JHCC (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

False claim. There is historical evidence. Its a fact that John the Baptist is widely regarded as an Essene. By whom, you ask? By scholars looking at the evidence. Just go check any other encylopeida and it says as much. For example, the entry for JOHN THE BAPTIST in the respected Jewish Encylopedia [1] (article by the esteemed scholar Kaufmann Kohler) describes him as an "Essene saint and preacher; flourished between 20 and 30 C.E.; fore-runner of Jesus of Nazareth and originator of the Christian movement. Of his life and character Josephus ("Ant." xviii. 5, § 2)..." The Encylopeadiea Britannica states, "As a young man John lived...as part of a Jewish monastic community such as the Essenes."

"John the Baptist, Saint." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 20 Jan. 2006 You yelling there is no historical evidence doesnt make it so. Can you site a respected source that makes such a false clai as you contend? As for supporting my claims, that is easy do do and refutes your innacurate statments here.

John the Baptist – B. Witherington III writes[38] a list of points connecting John the Baptist with the Essene community at Qumran. The Essenes frequently adopted orphans[39]; it is likely that John was orphaned at an early age. John spent his adolescence in the Judean wilderness; the Essenes were locally based at Qumran in the Judean desert. The Baptist and the Essenes had a shared interest in priestly matters and a priestly Messiah[40] and a shared focus on Isaiah 40:3[41]. Both parties adhered to Spartan diets and ascetical behaviour[42]. Similar interests in sacramentology also link the Baptist to the Essenes (in that John’s water rite was comparable to Qumran ablution rights). Of the three main Jewish sects, John the Baptist’s eschatological orientation is closest to the Essene position. ---citations 38] See B. Witherington III’s article on John the Baptist in the “Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels” IV[39] Josephus, War 2.120; [40] 1QS 5.2; [41] 1QS 8.14;[42] Damascus Rule 12.13-14 specifies how to eat locusts and honey."

The Essene-Christian Faith (1989, 273 pp.) by Larson is a thorough and scholarly review of the development of the Essene movement within Judaism, of the Teacher of Righteousness (ca. 95 - ca. 69 B.C.), and of his close parallel, Jesus, who he is states is also probably an Essene.

“The Essenes were Pythagoreans who encased their pagan religious synthesis, which Jesus absorbed, in a Jewish entegument, which he rejected, although He considered Himself one of the prophets of Yahweh; but he incorporated a definitely Buddhist element, not found among the Essenes. In the Gospel, therefore, we find a synthesis of Osirian-Dionysiac soteriology, Zoroastrian eschatology, Buddhist ethics and renunciation, Pythagorean communism, and the Essenic Parousia. (416-17)”

I also cite the following sources of scholarhsip:

Francis Legge, Forerunners and Rivals of Christianity, From 330 B.C. to 330 A.D. (1914), reprinted as two volumes bound as one, University Books New York, 1964. LC Catalog 64-24125.

The Therapeutae and Christianity http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0120PhiloJudaeus.html Vermes, Geza and Martin D. Goodman, eds. The Essenes according to the Classical Sources. Sheffield: Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies and JSOT Press, 1989.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/asbook.html Dr Constantine Scouteris, "The Therapeutae of Philo and the Monks as Therapeutae according to Pseudo-Dionysius": comparing the Therapeutae with the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy Golb, Norman. 1985. "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Search for the Secret of Qumran". Scribner Sanders, E.P., 1992. "Judaism: Practice & Belief 63BCE - 66CE" Minneapolis: Fortress Schiffman, Lawrence H. 1991. "From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple & Rabbinic Judaism". Ktav Publishing House Smith, Enid S., Ph.D., 1959, The Essenes Who Changed Churchianity The Essenes are an important part of H. Rider Haggard's Pearl-Maiden: A Tale of the Fall of Jerusalem.

And there is a lot more. Am I the only one providing references and citations to back up my claim here? It would seem so. 64.121.40.153Giovanni

JHC, I agree with you on the use of Wikipedia articles. Another WP article might be just as flawed as Giovanni thinks this here is.

And in regard to Essenes, I have run into a disagreement on another article, and from what I hear (I haven't yet been able to look into it) this article is not quite up to standard. Certainly the passage Giovanni quoted is at least very POV.

Str1977 19:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I will be a able to address all these points later today, and further make changes to the language to reflect consensus. Sorry, I've been a little too busy to take care of this yesterday.64.121.40.153 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Its funny that scholars which are known and respected are cited they said to be not good sources, yet no backing of these false claims are given. The same was done with Gibbon, whose autoritative resarch is very well respected and has not be discredited in the least. But I understand why: As Dr. Larson writes, "Christian have always held that their creed was a single, unique, miraculous, and supreme revelation without predecessor or outside contributor. But the fact is that nothing could be further from the truth; Christianity is a composite of doctrines, teachings, and ideologies which have forerunners in previous religions, with a proximate source in the Essene cult. If these facts were widely known, the authority of the Church or the churches would be drastically reduced. For this reason the reigning churches are determined to show that there is little or no similarity between Essenism and original Christianity. Or they prefer simply to ignore the whole thing as if it did not exist It would be virtually impossible to do this if all the Scrolls were published.

We know also from the Scrolls as well as from many passages in the New Testament that both the Essenes and Jesus were bitterly opposed to the Jewish authorities, especially the religious. There can be little doubt that the Scrolls now crumbling into dust include many passages in which the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Scribes are excoriated in the most bitter terms and that the tyranny exercised by them over the dissident Essenes is described in full detail. We know that about 104 B.C. the Essenes became a secret cult, went underground as it were, and forbade its members to discuss any of its beliefs with outsiders. We know also that about 70 B.C. the Teacher of Righteousness, the Essene leader, appeared in the temple in Jerusalem, where he denounced the authorities, and that, as a result, he was executed, probably by crucifixion; and that his followers therafter declared that he had risen from the grave on the third day, ascended to heaven, and would send a great messiah before the end of the generation to conduct the Last Judgement and inaugurate the Kingdom of the Saints on earth."

This is taken from "An Update on the Dead Sea Scrolls by MARTIN A. LARSON (Paper Presented to the Eighth International Revisionist Conference) Vol. No1 2001 64.121.40.153 01:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I move the contentious paragraphs here, as they are not only inaccurate and heavily POV, but also out of place in the current structure of the section:

The early Christians heavily relied on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the West as the Septuagint. While initially Christianity grew out of Judaism (using Jewish scriptures as justification of their own teachings and scriptures), the major Christian doctrines are believed to have also emerged out of the mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East around 2000 years ago. Early Christian fathers such as Clement of Alexander and Origen mention the continuity between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, the inner mystery teachings, and Christianity. Other scholars such as Camille Paglia have noted that Christianity was a development of the Dionysian mystery religion.

In its early years, what came to be called Christianity may have existed as a variety of mystery cults, limited to a small number of people and expounding esoteric teachings. Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and while there is much speculation that Christian beliefs were influenced by Mithraism which was assimilated by state-sponsored Christianity before being diposed of in name, according to Martin A. Larson, in The Story of Christian Origins (1977), Mithraism and Christianity derived from the same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris.

The basic church hierarchy developed in the first century and it is fairly probable that they emphasized common features to attract followers. In doing so many of these mystery teachings were brought out into the open, and redressed with often a literal interpretation. Such a veritable potpourri of religious ideas combined from Judaic monotheism, Persian dualism, eastern otherworldliness and asceticism, and the various mystery teachings makes the origins of Christian doctrine one whose complexity continues to shroud it in mystery.

Str1977 11:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, in doing some research, Larson's book (which is hard to find nowadays) is largely discredited by mainstream historians. Not a very authoritative or well thought of source for information. KHM03 12:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You say he "is largely discredited by mainstream historians" I challenge you to back up your claim, or else withdrawl it. The same goes for those who smeared Gibbon. Also, this particular book of his is not hard to find at all, just out of print. You can get it at Amazon. But, it is well-researched, relevant, interesting information. It is also cited in other similar studies, by other scholars.

A bit about him since you tarnished his name. Martin A. Larson (March 2, 1897 – January 15, 1994) was an American populist freethinker and religion scholar specializing in theological history and the Essenes. Originally from a fundamentalist Evangelical background [1], his writings ranged from...to a disquisition on the similarities among the cults of Osiris, Dionysus, Mithras and Jesus. He earned a PhD from the University of Michigan with a thesis on the unorthodoxies of Milton, whom he found to have rejected the doctrine of the Trinity [2].

Larson's lifelong body of work reconstructs a complete story of Christian origins and its theological controversies, detailing Christian evolution from beginning to now. This includes the synthesis of ideas, deities and personalities that historically gave favor to Christianity against religious competitors such as Mithraism, which lacked a human founder and barred the general public, or Manichaeism, which lacked a deified founder. He summarizes the exposition of this story..." 64.121.40.153 00:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I found a quote from Paula Fredrikson saying Jesus was not an Essene (or Pharisee, or member of several other groups), and another bit by Jaroslav Pelikan simply discussing his role as a Jewish Rabbi here. I still wonder, have you mentioned a citation where Origen or Tertullian connect Christianity with the 'inner mystery' religions favorably? I may well have missed it in the bulk text above. Wesley 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, I don't believe that Jesus was an Essene either. At most I said he was influenced by them, and that John the Baptist is widely regarded to have been an Essense. This is all I said, so I agree with your Fredrikson quote. Also, my contributions never even made the claim that any one in particular was an Essense per se, only that the Essene mystery teachings were among these mystery cults which influenced the development of what emerged as Christianity. And, I said this is widely accepted.

The Essenes are no mystery cult and any influence on Christianity (sure various Jewish sects influenced each other) mut be before the year 66. And remember, you did not claim "influence" but you claimed "may have existed as a variety of mystery cults" (in the newest version).

Regarding, Origen, (one of the more open minded fathers) he wrote hundreds of books trying to harmonize Christian thought with Greek philosophy, to create a synthesis of Christianity and Platonism basically. Allegorical interpretation of scripture and parallels drawn from Greek mythology was his method. Proof of the resurrection came from pagan antecedents, other heroes "risen from their graves." He said Jesus had been invisible, except to the few with "powers." Ofcourse, we know he was excommunicated and condemned as a heretic. Do you need references for these widely known facts? I never made any such claim about the hardliner, Tertullian, who by the way defected to the Montanists cult and was thus branded a heretic himself. I did mention, Clement of Alexandria who had a pagan background and was also strongly influenced by Greek philosophy and succeeded by Origen.

That might be the case (though "open minded" is no useful concept here), but it in no way supports what you wrote. Yes, Origen and Clement pointed out similarities (but also differences) to Greek culture and philosophy to make Christianity respectable. In a way, theology in the original sense is Greek philosophy applied to the revealed sources of faith.

BTW. Origen was branded a heretic not for those things you mention here, and in fact this verdict became universal only centuries later.

I noticed there was a changed made my Mika responding to one of your objections. Specifically that the church heiarchy was established already in the 1st century. Can you support this? I don't think its true. Maybe not until the 4th century with Christianity becoming the State religion would I say that it had its orthodoxy formulated.

Read the New Testament (Matthew, letters to Timotheus, to Titus), read the letter of Saint Ignatius. The church hierarchy is clearly visible throughout the second and especially the 3rd century.

Let me explain fully my understandings, in a synopsis, if you will. This might be long but please bear with me. Do you deny that the first three centuries there was a plethora of Christian "cults" that vied with each other and their pagan adversaries?

Yes, I would deny that. Yes, Christian congegrations existed apart from one another and hence there were some differences. There were also other groups who claimed Christ and held various doctrines, e.g. the Gnostics but then it's the issue how broad Christianity should be defined.

Also, that in doing so they adopted many of the others beliefs and doctrines, even as they destroyed them, afterwards? There is no contradiction between the two notiong. The theological controversies you could say had a "polluting effect." The Apostasy as a very gradual process; in process of defending the received "truth," the Church became sullied by the engagements with its opponents both outside and within the Church. To reject errors, specific arguments were designed which were effective against the opposition but which contained imbalances and exaggerations.

Sure there were influences - but they go both ways: one can emphasize similarities or differences. But that is not what you claimed.

This is because the relious movments were part of the political landscape. For example with the defeat of the Jews in 135 everything Jewish to be distanced.

Nonsense. The disparagment of things Jewish by Romans authorities will hardly lead to a de-judification by another groups persecuted by the same authorities. The reason for the growing gulf is the relative numbers of Jewish and Gentile Christians and the formation of Rabbinical Judaism as definitely apart from Christianity. Hence, people had to choose.

Christian writers in the empire scrambled to use Greek logic and the style of the sophists to defend Christianity. The Jewishness of the faith was purged and they took comfort in noting similarities between their own ideas and pagan myths. So while the Church defeated paganism, but it could be argued that in the process it became subtly sympathetic with the opponent, and susceptible to incorporating attitudes and traditions which may have foreign to the biblical faith at one time.

Believers coming from a Greek background, such as Justin Martyr, used their intellectual heritage to explain the faith. The result is theology. It is utterly inadequate to put this into a narrow X vs. Y framework. Christians didn't become pagans by doing theology.

Similarly for the early battles with Marcion and Valentinius and Montanus, perhaps even as early as Simon Magus. This corruption was not always necessarily intentional; although, in some cases, it was and teachers of "error" brought in these "pollutions deceitfully in order to escape detection.

Yeah, but these four fellows were excomunicated sooner or later.

Eventually one particular faction insinuated itself into the political establishment the instituted obedience of Church leaders and a conformity of thought. But this was closer to teh 4th century than the 1st, no?

And what "faction" should that be?

Blind faith, which renders the impossible possible (Mark ix. 23, 24), produced a thnking that deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology"). A craving for the miraculous and supernatural created ever new superstitions, under the form of relic-worship from old pagan forms of belief. In the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed.

We have heard this song before, only it doesn't become truer by repition.

This medieval Christianity tended to find bliss in ignorance, because knowledge and belief seemed incompatible (Lecky, "History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne," ii. 203-210; idem, "History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe," i. 1-201).

Oh, Thomas Aquinas had some other thoughts on this.

Quite true (though I personally am not in total agreement with the "Great Ox" on this point). KHM03 13:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Many cardinal "Christian" beliefs, including belief in a sacrificial Jesus, had been widespread for centuries before the Christians appeared. The evidence shows clearly that the Christians took over pre-existing beliefs and sacraments rather than introduced new ones.

Belief in Jesus widespread before Jesus? Concepts in mystery cults and in Christianity are incompatible, these other "sacrificial lambs" were never historical person. And your clear evidence is contentious at best.

Many early Christians migrated to Rome in the wake of the Jewish war, including Valentinus, Marcion, and Cerdo, established a school in which the new theology was taught. These were regarded as the gnostic leaders, who openly proclaimed that all things Jewish should be discarded. Having jettisoned "Jewish practices", familiarity with the Greek "mystery religions" led the Gnostics to copy their style. Within an inner circle of adepts a secret "higher Wisdom" was passed orally from Master to Initiate. Their claim to authority rested on earlier holy men, apostles and sages, who, it was said, had entrusted arcane knowledge to their favourite disciples, the founders of the gnostic sects, hence being a mystery cult religion.

That is all true for the Gnostics. Whether they should be considered a Christian heresy or some pre-Christian religion putting on Christian clothes is debated. But nonetheless they were fought by the Church and denounced as unchristian. And Christianity as we have it is what came to us through the Church.

Ah, and "Many early Christians migrated to Rome" - yes, but many early Christians already were in Rome ... and they reacted sooner (Valentinus) or later (Marcion) to these heresiarchs ... and not in a positive way.

The cults vied with each other for acolytes, with some groups committed to asceticism and the denial of all "pleasures of the flesh" and others to indulgence, in which sex, revelry, etc were encouraged. The exclusivity of mystery cult meant that gnosticism was intrinsically elitist, but they marketed themselves also for the uneducated masses in vulgarised versions of gnostic doctrines dressed up in allegory. These were written down and circulated, and subsequently enacted in pageants and plays. These Christian leaders of the mid-2nd century concocted fables, each styled the "one true gospel of the Lord", with which they made a bid for a more universal leadership. The more ambitious strove for an independent, even millenarian church; some achieved high position within the Catholic hierarchy. Gnosticism's free spirited speculations on the divine had thrived in the Pax Romana of the Antonine emperors.

Other Christian sects, opposed to them, who argued for unquestioning faith and a blind acceptance of dogma, also were political sought sought accommodation with the caesars. Increasingly they compromised with traditional paganism and expropriated its iconography. They also further vulgarising and literalising bits and pieces from the wash of gospels, parables and 'wisdom' statements, much of which had originated within the Gnostics; they torched the rest as heresy. The losers, exiled and persecuted, with their property taken, their sacred literature banned and destroyed, were condemned as heretics. A sample of that scripture was preserved in a cave at Nag Hammadi. See J.M. Robinson (Ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library (Leiden, 1984) During the 1st century CE there were at least three distinct divisions within the Christian movement: the Jewish Christians, Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul), and Gnostic Christians (people who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge). Each believed themselves to be the true church, and were highly critical of the other two.

Very nice "free spirited gnostics" vs. the blind faith. I never knew that faith was blind. Or that wild speculations were a good thing.

Back to my original point, there is overwhelming scholarly work extant that demonstrates the incorporation of these ideas of the Christians from Gnosticism and from various amalgamations of Jewish ideas in combination with Stoicism, Orpheism and Dionyseanism Gnosticism which all were in development as well at roughly the same time as Christianity. Many followers of this movement (Valentinius being one of the most well-known) were also Christians, and taught a synthesis of the two belief systems. This of course resulted in major controversy in the early church.

There are scholarly works and debate on a influence of Christianity by mystery cults and vice versa. But what you claim as consensus is an extreme position.

And, Christianity was not the only religion seeking and finding converts in the 1st century. Modern historians of the Roman world give interest to the mystery religions or mystery cults beginning in the last century of the Roman Republic and increasing during the centuries of the Roman Empire. Roman authors themselves, such as Livy, tell of the importation of "foreign gods" during times. Judaism, too, was receiving converts and in some cases actively evangelizing. The New Testament reflects a class of people referred to as 'believers in God' who are thought to be Gentile converts; Philo of Alexandria makes explicit the duty of Jews to welcome converts.

Sure Christians were not the only one. No one claimed that. Mystery cults certainly are an interesting subject, but what is contentious here is the extreme claim that "Christianity began existing as a variety of mystery cults". Practically every word in this sentence is contentious on its own and utterly false when combined.

After the decree of Theodosius in 391, and subsequent suppression, many Mithraeums were converted into Christian churches (such as Notre-Dame du Taur, and the Church of San Clemente); these were often dedicated to the archangel Michael.

In what way does that relate to our issue. Not at all.

In the second century conventionally educated converts began to produce two kinds of writings that help us understand the developing shapes of Christianity - works aimed at a broad audience of educated non-Christians and works aimed at those who considered themselves inside the Church. The Apologists made a presentation for the educated classes of the beliefs of Christians, often coupled with an attack on the beliefs and practices of the pagans. Other writings had the purpose of instructing and admonishing fellow Christians. Many writings of this period, however, succumbed to destruction from the Early Catholic Church as heretical.

You are right about the writers, but not "many writings of this period, however, succumbed to destruction from the Early Catholic Church as heretical" - the most of what is lost was just lost and not intentionally destroyed. Origen, yes, was frowned upon, but you can't generalize.

It was during this period church government began to take on a hierarchical form that matched the Roman government.

There was a Church hierarchy in the first century (at least in some places).

The Emperor Constantine I was, like emperors before him, high priest of the Mithraic religion.

He was, as all Emperors before him, head of the Roman state cult. Since Aurelian there was also the cult of "Sol invictus", which can be described as a slimmed down version of Mithras. But how do these official functions (which were more or less dropped in the following years) have to do with Christianity.

However, he was also interested in creating unity for the sake of ease of governance, and to this end involved himself in a dispute between Christian groups over Arianism, summoning the First Council of Nicaea; this Council produced the Nicene Creed.

True, but nothing sinister here. Why did he choose Christianity to create unity ... and why did he stick with it despite the rising Arian conflict?

Constantine mitigated some differences between orthodox Christianity and its main competitor, the official religion of Sol Invictus.

Nonsense. Sol invictus was no "main competitor" - it was Aurelian's attempt to create such unity through a slimmed down Mithras. But it did not yield success. And differences needed no mitigation.

For example, he moved the date of celebration of Jesus' birth to December 25th (since this was the celebration date for the birth of Mithras and Bacchus, and also the date of other winter solstice festivals such as Saturnalia).

In fact, Constantine was quite uninvolved in any Christmas date. Eastern and Western Churches still disagree on the proper date (25 December or 6 January). The December date was a reference to the winter solistice symbolism. There's nothing Mithraic about it. Both usages of the date go back to the natural fact of the solistice. There are even recent theories that the date was originally Christian and copied by paganism. I don't believe that but it illustrates the difficulties in finding causation.

In addition, Constantine instituted use of the Chi-Rho symbol, representative of Christianity, also alleged by some scholars to have had use as an obeloi for "auspicious" thus serving both Christian and non-Christian purpose simultaneously. Thus, we can see the effect of Mithranism on Christianity directly, in this regard.

Note, you just said "alleged by some scholars to have had use as" and then you turn it into "we can see the effect of Mithranism on Christianity directly". How about XP being the initial letters of XPISTOS? Too absurd a theory? Str1977 13:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Further refences:

Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy Jesus and the Goddess (Thorsons, 2002) J.R. Porter, The Lost Bible (Duncan Baird, 2001) Maxwell Staniforth, Early Christian Writings (Penguin, 1978) L. Boyle, St. Clements, Rome (Collegio San Clemente, 1989) Jean Ritchie, The Secret World of Cults (Harper Collins, 1991) John Riches, The World of Jesus (Cambridge University Press, 1990) Colin Wilson, The Occult (Grafton, 1988)

What is striking is the sheer variety of Christianities that proliferated from the very earliest date and a far from universal set of beliefs, including very basic things such as either in a human Jesus or a resurrected one. The evidence of Jesus's 'human existence', far from being confirmed and agreed by early Christians, was a matter of ferocious contention. Many Christians between the 1st - 4th century had NO belief in a flesh and blood Jesus; it was offensive to some particular interpretations of the divine.

This is indeed striking: There is evidence for the historical (yes, human) existence of Jesus. It is established beyond any reasonable doubt and only a few extremists still deny it. Certainly the existence of Jesus was not contented (let alone "ferocious"ly) in antiquity. True, Gnostics and Docetists considered him a spirit "undefiled by matter" but how far must a modern man stretch to use this as a basis for doubting Jesus' historicity, and how it such "evidence" able to refute the evidence from historical person who historically state that they historically spoke with a historical Jesus. And again, it is contentious whether these who "had NO belief in a flesh and blood Jesus" should be considered Christians at all.

To be true to what you said earlier about paganisation and de-judification you would have to consider those that didn't think a "flesh and blood Jesus ... offensive" as closer to the original. But somehow you don't. Str1977 13:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thomas William Doane, 1882, Bible Myths and their Parallels in Other Religions, is a bit outdated but a classic revelation of pagan antecedents of biblical myths and miracles. Edwin Johnson, 1887, Antiqua mater. A Study of Christian Origins. English radical theologian identified the early Christians as the Chrestiani, followers of a good (Chrestus) God who had expropriating the myth of Dionysos Eleutherios ("Dionysos the Emancipator"), to produce a self-sacrificing Jesus. Gerardus Bolland, 1907, De Evangelische Jozua. Philosopher at Leiden identified the origin of Christianity in an earlier Jewish Gnosticism. In 1907 Pope Pius X took action and condemned the Modernists who were "working within the framework of the Church". An anti-Modernist oath was introduced in 1910. Arthur Drews, 1910, Die Christusmythe (The Christ Myth). 1910, Die Petruslegende (The Legend of St Peter). 1924, Die Entstehung des Christentums aus dem Gnostizismus (The Emergence of Christianity from Gnosticism). Alexander Hislop, 1916, The Two Babylons. Exhaustive exposure of the pagan rituals and paraphernalia of Roman Catholicism. Edward Carpenter, 1920, Pagan and Christian Creeds. Elaborated the pagan origins of Christianity. John J. Jackson, 1938, Christianity Before Christ, Drew attention to the Egyptian precedents of Christian belief. Herbert Cutner, 1950, Jesus: God, Man, or Myth? Mythical nature of Jesus and a summary of the ongoing debate between mythicists and historicizers. Pagan origins of Christ discussed. Georges Ory, 1961, An Analysis of Christian Origins. Guy Fau, 1967, Le Fable de Jesus Christ. John Allegro, 1970, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. 1979, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth. Max Rieser, 1979, The True Founder of Christianity and the Hellenistic Philosophy. Christianity started by Jews of the Diaspora and then retroactively set in pre-70 Palestine. Christianity arrived last, not first, in Palestine – that's why Christian archeological finds appear in Rome but not in Judea until the 4th century. Gerd Lüdemann, 1998, The Great Deception: And What Jesus Really Said and Did. 2002, Paul: The Founder of Christianity. 2004, The Resurrection Of Christ: A Historical Inquiry. After 25 years of study German professor concluded Paul, not Jesus, started Christianity. Alvar Ellegard, 1999, Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ. Christianity seen as emerging from the Essene Church of God with the Jesus prototype the Teacher of Righteousness. Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, 1999, The Jesus Mysteries. 2001, Jesus and the Lost Goddess : The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians. Examines the close relationship between the Jesus Story and that of Osiris-Dionysus. Jesus and Mary Magdalene mythic figures based on the Pagan Godman and Goddess. Burton Mack, 2001,The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy. Social formation of myth making. Tom Harpur, 2005, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Canadian New Testament scholar and ex-Anglican priest re-states the Christianity, it was clear, had not fallen from heaven but was a man-made production. 64.121.40.153 11:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I've made serveal changes to the contentious elements in the passage, and have reposted it. Please do no revert without talking aobut my latest changes, and contributions here in the talk page. Giovanni33 12:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find Larson or his book on Amazon.com...could you provide an ISBN number? It could be that I'm just not searching properly. I still see that his work was way out of the mainstream and not accepted by most mainstream scholars. Could you "back up" his claims from other, more accepted/mainstream/acknowledged authorities? Justo Gonzales is a pretty good "recent" authority, pretty well respected. Alister McGrath is a good one, too, though he's more "theology" as opposed to "strict history". There are others, of course. Citing some mainstream figures might help, though. KHM03 03:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Alister McGrath, having read one of his books, and I was not impressed by it. For those who don't know he is the Director of the Oxford Centre for Evangelism and Apologetics at Wycliffe Hall. He is one of the most widely read and influential Christian writers of a conservative bent, but his bias gets the better of him in many cases. How about a mainstream secular historian on these questions? I have provided already too many above, which do support my claims. About the Larson book, try again. You should be able to search for author and you can see all his books, along with reviews. Giovanni33 13:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

From what I can read, most of the additions are "contentious". It's also way too long; there is a History of Christianity article which deals with this stuff in greater detail. I edited out most of the controversial/disputed elements, incoroprating the rest into the text. If we want to expand more than a very basic overview (particularly with material which is disputed in academia), we ought to revisit the main history article, and not go overboard here, on an article which seems to always threaten to be too lengthy. KHM03 13:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Its ok if there are things which are contenttious among scholars. One need only mention that fact, not exclude it all together, esp. when its vaulable. I'll take a look at the section again and I did see opportunities to make it shorter. Also, state which parts now exist in the seciton that you think is in dispute among scholarship with some citations that show this. That would help and we can make the appropriate language adjustments to reflect that. Giovanni33 14:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecutions list

I'm not a big fan of the list of "people persecuted by Christians," or whatever it may be, but I can live with it (if it is correct). However, I would mention something about it being the medieval Roman Catholic church that did so (or specific others, where appropriate), instead of the simplistic designation "Christian." - ElAmericano | talk 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My reason for deleting the list was simply that it was a lot of accusations with no citation whatsoever...just an unsubstantiated list. KHM03 18:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The list was flawed, as some groups were not persecuted by Christians at all, some to no large extent and some were pseudo-groups. And not of those that were persecuted by Christians were persecuted by the Catholic Church or specifically by the Catholic Church. Str1977 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Why'd you restore it? KHM03 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, if got three words for you: Soft! Ware! Bug! I am sorry about that and have repaired the bug. Str1977 19:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just restored the persecutions list. I think it is interesting and believe many others will too. Is anyone denying any of the categories mentioned? If so, no doubt citations can easily be provided. Just list the ones doubted - persanally I can't even guess which ones might be in doubt

Incidentally, many of these persecutions were detailed in an external web-link on human rights. There is something more than suspicious in removing a link that makes a case, then reverting material consistent with that case on the grounds that it is not supported!

I too seem to detect a concerted effort here by the faithful to minimise any observations, however facual, that show the Church in a less than glorious light, and I also agree with the observation that the there is a heavy bias in the demands for citations by those editors who are very obviously influenced by their own Christian beliefs. As someone has noted earlier not a single citation has been offered for pro-Christian statements or for the removal of statements that are less than lauditary to the record of Christianity.

Let's up the standards of academic scholarship, and stop trying to impose personal beliefs. Whgat good can anyone imagine it does?

194.165.180.131 20:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Historian

If you wish to include the list, can you give a specific academic citation to support it? Newspaper article, book, etc.; please let us know. Thanks...KHM03 20:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's do this way since I assume you can't possibly doubt all of the list. You let me know just one that can't easily be justified by a good academic reference, and I'll remove the whole list myself!

194.165.180.131 21:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Historian

I think that's what KHM03 is saying... provide a "good academic reference" for the list... then it might be okay. Also, see WP:CITE. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Frankly, I don't care for the approach it takes. Yes, I believe that Christians have persecuted people. But an unsubstantiated list which contains so many groups...doesn't seem quite fair. I'd like to see either academic support for any list of that type, or just leave it, and keep up the link to the appropriate articles. I don't see a list, after all, which states that "Christians have been persecuted by Muslims, atheists..." etc. KHM03 21:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we also agree that the link labelled "The record of the Christian Churches in the development of Human Rights" has no place in a neutral article. DJ Clayworth 22:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that. KHM03 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Suppression of sourced criticism does not make for neutrality. That is absurd. Why are inclusion of facts relevant to the topic not allowed? The only "POV here is the truth--the historical record. Now if you claim that the record itself is bias thats another matter, however it seems you are saying that merely mentioning this record is itself, which puts the church in a non-favorable light is what you object to as "NPOV." That is POV pushing. 64.121.40.153 23:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

?

It's a POV, unbalanced, inaccurate link. You're acting as if it's unbiased historic fact. There are many valid critiques of Christianity; this link isn't worthwhile. KHM03 23:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that is your POV/Claim. If you say that its inaccurate, not worthwhile, etc, then please make your case. This countries that engage in human rights violations calling Amnesty International POV. Human rights have objective universal standards and the record of Christianity is very poor by ANY standard of human rights. This information is being suppressed as POV only, which is an abuse of the notion of neutrality. To suppress sourced criticism is not NPOV. Please make your case if think link is not factually accurate. 64.121.40.153 23:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Any academic citations? Or just a flawed website? Please cite your claims, and then we can proceed with the discussion...thanks...KHM03 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re KHM03 comments above. I can see from your profile that as a Church Elder you are obviously best placed to judge neutrality. Also I hadn't realised that external links were supposed to be neutral and free of Povs. Thanks for the info. I'm just about to delete links which are obviously biased and devotional, and will continue to do so for as long as you insist on deleting links you do not happen to like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.131.156 (talk • contribs) 23:59,16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the double-standard is glaring. Pro-religious links are allowed to stand, which are clearly POV, yet nothing that could pur the church in a negative light. 64.121.40.153 00:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not necessary to resort to a POV complaint to remove the heretication link. Check out Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially Dubious sources. To quote:

Personal websites and blogs are not acceptable as sources, except on the rare occasion that a well-known person, or a known professional journalist or researcher in a relevant field, has set up such a website. Remember that it is easy for anybody to create a website and to claim to be an expert in a certain field, or to start an "expert group", "human rights group", church, or other type of association. Several million people have created their own blogs in the last few years. They are not regarded as acceptable sources for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information.

Jpers36 00:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous users 64.121.40.153 and 194.145.131.156 (unless you're one and the same)...regarding my status as ordained clergy, please review WP:AGF. Also, I'm not sure you're doing a whole lot here to work with the community. You've been asked to cite sources. Please do so, and cease the pointless reverts until we all as a community can reach a consensus. Thanks...KHM03 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, 64.121.40.153, your recent edit summary claimed "rv vandalism/suppression of agreed changes in talk page"...but there was no vandalism and no agreed changes on the talk page. Please watch your summaries for accuracy. Thanks...KHM03 00:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wiping out work of agreed changes from the talk page, without justification or any participatin on the talk page, despite notice, and over and over is a vandalism. My summary is accurate. 64.121.40.153 00:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I might add that 194.145.131.156's deletion of other links, as protest against deletion of the heretication link seems to be a violation of WP:Point. 64.121.40.153's most recent edit summary ("rv vandalism/suppression of agreed changes in talk page") is quite misleading, as the edit before did not at all fit the definition of vandalism, and the changes were not agreed on the talk page. (This was written before edit conflict with KHM03.) Also, 194.145.131.156, please sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes like this ~~~~. It makes it easier for people coming later to read the discussion. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 00:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again...there were no "agreed changes". Please be more careful...thanks. KHM03 00:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecutions list & External web links

The reason for removing the Human rights weblink was given by KHM03 as its alleged bias & PoV. Now either external sites are expected to be neutral or they're not. If they're not then this link should be reinstated. If they are, then all of the blatently pro-Christian links will have to go. I don't care which it is, but let's be clear either way.

The HR site in question gives a pretty well reasoned case, and I think clearly shifts the onus of proof. A previous editor has asked for anyone to identify any victim of Christian persecution on the persecutions list that you (KHM03) think is not justified. This seems a reasonable request and it is very noticeable that you fail to identify even one. Are you denying the activities of the Inquisition, or institutional Church anti-semitism, the extermination of the Cathars, the judicial killing of people like Brno, or what? Just for once, lets hear some specifics from you - I think many people will be very interested to hear exactly what you are denying and why. Give it a try - just for once. We can can all see how dedicated you are to academic rigor.

168.224.1.14 11:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Mr Objective

Problem, Mr Objective, is that the "Christian sites", as you call them, identify as such, while the "Human rights site" hides behind pretenses of objectivity, declaring alleged facts (and indeed they are mostly quite the opposite of facts) without sources or argument, and basically is nothing more than a statement of bigotry that doesn't even realise that any criticism they might make is only possible because of the influence of Christianity in the first place. Str1977 11:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 -- well stated.

168.224.1.14 aka "Mr Objective" -- As I stated previously, I have no doubt that there has been persecution by Christians of other groups. What I asked for was, rather than an unsupported list, that we come up with sources (see WP:CITE) to support those claims. None were offered, which means that inclusion of the list could be original research, which is obviously frowned upon at Wikipedia. But if you (or any editor) can provide citations for each of the groups on the lengthy list, then I'd support its inclusion. Thanks...KHM03 12:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary Str1977 the site in question looks to me to be well researched and to contain many good objective references, including many to the bible and other religious sources. I don't know if it purports to be objective, but I'm not sure that's relevent. As I said before, if we remove all external links that anyone finds biased, then we'll not have many external links left.

I think the site clearly shifts the onus of proof. I'm not sure what the point about original research is. Simply compiling a list is hardly original research. As long as each item on the list can be confirmed by authoritative sources, where's the problem? A previous editor has asked for anyone to identify any victim of Christian persecution on the persecutions list that KHM03 thinks is not justified. This seems a reasonable request and it is very noticeable that he failed to identify even one. It is not clear whether you are denying the activities of the Inquisition, or institutional Church anti-semitism, the extermination of the Cathars, the judicial killing of people like Brno, or what? Just for once, lets hear some specifics from you - I think many people will be very interested to hear exactly what you are denying and why. Go on - apply the same standards to yourself as you apply to everyone you don't agree with.

168.224.1.14 14:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Mr Objective

The heretication site isn't even close to objective, or even factually correct. Given the thousands of sites about Christianity there are out there we can do much better. DJ Clayworth 14:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

So, another pro-Christian advocate who has missed the point entirely about objectivity and who fails to cite a single concrete example to support accusations of innacuracy. This is really not good enough.

168.224.1.14 14:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Mr Objective

Insults won't get you anywhere. Maybe you should explain why you think this attack site is actually objective. DJ Clayworth 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I still oppose the inclusion of the entire list, but let us for the moment adhere to the link provided as a source. It gives the following list:

Jews; Moslems; Pagans; Cathars; so called "Heretics"; Schismatics; Apostates; Humanists, Pantheists, Deists, Atheists and others; so called "Witches"

That is not congruent with what various editors have inserted, based on the link. The link is missing out:

Animists (unless subsumed under "pagans"), Zoroastrians; worshippers of Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse and Celtic gods (unless subsumed under pagans); Manichaeans, Gnostics and other Dualists (unless subsumed under "so-called "Heretics""); proto-scientists.

Some notes about the groups mentioned. We don't need to argue about Jews, pagans, heretics (including all subsections), witches as they are already included in the text.

• Zoroastrians have absolutely no place in here, as there has been no persecution (even if for lack of oppurtunity) of Zoroastrians by Christians.
• "proto-scientists" are no group and the alleged cases are mostly spurious or better subsumed under either heretic or witch. It boils down to one case: Gallilei, who was neither proto or warrants a note all by himself.
• When was there any large scale persecution of Atheists or Deists by Christian? Granted, an Atheist would have been persecuted in the 13th century, if taken seriously, but there were no atheists around. To have persecution we need a potential persecutor and and a potential persecutee at the same place at the same time.
• When was there any large scale persecution of Muslims by Christians (apart from the expulsion of the Moors from Spain)?

The last two items are worded as questions because they are genuine questions. If you can provide such instances, then bring it on.

Str1977 15:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone asked for specific objections to the list of persecutions; here are some. The Spanish Inquisition was mainly under the control of the Spanish monarchy, not the Church. Prosecutions were generally carried out by secular authorities. Regarding the Cathars, my limited reading has yet to find anything to suggest that the goal was to "exterminate" them; the goal was conversion. There is also the question of religious versus secular motivations there as well, as it resulted in quite a bit of land changing hands. The heretication site purports to be well researched, but contains a number of inaccuracies; many of its "good" facts seem to be presented so as to deliberately mislead the reader. Wesley 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr Objective seems to have stopped posting here when I asked for his evidence. However, since he asked, let's examine the reasons why the heretication site is actually far from objective.

1. It is attempting something entirely unreasonable - namely it is taking a late twentieth century definition of 'human rights' and applying it to an organisation's record over 2000 years. Not only is that unreasonable, but frankly no organisation or group would stand up to such scrutiny. Atheists, Americans, Italians, Asians or People with Blue Eyes; none would look good if what they did 1000 years ago was judged by the standards of today. Likewise a Wikipedia from 1000 years ago would undoubtedly condemn 21st century Western society for what they perceived as horrendous crimes.
2. It is obvious that the only agenda of this site is to attack Christians - not to present a fair or accurate assessment. In each section something is written only if they can find something bad to say about Christians. If there is a section where they can find nothing bad about Christians, then they just write "N/A". That's not presenting an objective picture.
3. Some of their historical statements are just laughably vague or inaccurate. To take merely one example, there is a whole section on the 'historical Christian support of slavery'. Saying that simply ignores historical facts. Christians were in fact at the forefront of the abolitionist movement, both in the US and Europe. Many of the leading abolitionists were not only practicing Christians, but in most cases cited their faith as a reason for opposing slavery. True there were Christians arguing for the continuance of slavery also, but to claim that Christianity as a whole was on the side of slavery is just plain wrong.

I can go on, but I think that will do for now. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Galileo was not the only academic called to account for his work. For example Champillon, whilst excavating in Egypt, had to supress clear archaeological evidence that contradicted Biblical chronology under RC church instructions. Less than 200 years ago, in the church controlled west, no academic could publish evidence that proved the Biblical timeline wrong, without fear of loss of funding or institutional support.

The problem with finding cases of organised persecution by Christians of Athiests is always difficult as they are, by definition, not a single group. If persecution did occur, there is no central office to record it (and keep those records safe) or group of faithful followers to take up the cause. Athiesm is a very old idea but as stated above there were none in the 13th century as they would not have survived. Bearing in mind the diversity of today's belief systems this in itself is telling. SOPHIA 10:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, we are talking about persecution here. I myself wouldn't call Gallileo's case persecution, but of course others might disagree. But what you state about Champillion, if accurate, is far from being persecution. Or are we to include somewhere that scientists persecuted scientists, because the colleagues of Copernicus almost bullied him into not publishing his book (and would have succeeded would it not have been for his confessor) and Gallileo was opposed by his colleagues (while supported by the Church). I don't think that is persecution, but you seem to disagree.

As for the atheists - if there is no evidence then it's not our business to make such claims anyway. Yes, Atheism is an old hat, but it had been out of use of a couple of (saner) centuries. Not because it was violently surpressed but because of its own deficencies. Str1977 15:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecution by Atheists

I think it might be fun to add a section to Atheism listing all the people who have been persecuted by atheists. I think it would be pretty long. DJ Clayworth 15:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin would be the outstanding example. Up to 100 million Russians died either directly or indirectly due to his actions or policies. Many of these were Christians. ^rossnixon 10:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the big difference here is that Stalin didn't target people on the basis of their religion or lack thereof. He targeted people on the basis of their politics. Corax 06:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Stalin did target people for various reasons and you cannot always so easily separate the various reasons - politics, econimics, ideology, religion, mere rivalry. Stalin did institute a anti-Jewish campaign late in his life. But if you don't "like" Stalin than take Lenin, who originated a vicious persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church. Compared with him, the later Stalin relented a bit (though of course Stalin had been Lenin's hench man). Str1977 11:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Denominations of Christianity

I believe it is inaccurate to lump together Anglicanism and Lutheranism simply under the heading "Protestants," along with the numerous other denominations that were either offshoots of these two reform movements within the Church catholic, or were started by particular leaders. There is a distinction between the Continental Reform tradition of Calvin, Zwingli, Knox, the anabaptists, et al, and the specifically anti-Roman reforms of the Catholic Church whcih were undertaken in England and in the Nordic countries which followed Luther. I have tried now a few times to createa separate category for Anglicans and Lutherans (as have others before me) after the so-called "Catholic," category, but some partisan with, likely, either an Evangelical or a Traditionalist Roman Catholic POV repeatedly removes my/our contributions. Please stop doing this.

Nrgdocadams 04:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Actually, as a Lutheran I object to what you're trying to do (though I wasn't involved in reverting it here.) Lutherans are certainly Protestants. The differences between the Lutheran and Anglican churches and the other Protestant churches could perhaps be dealt with some other way, but don't try to tell us we aren't Protestant. We were the first Protestants. Look up Protestant in the OED if you don't believe me. It is not productive to try to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean, and I can't see how an attempt to implicitly redefine a word like this can ever be NPOV.--Srleffler 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the Anglicans agree, since the full name of their church in the United States appears to be the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America^*. --Srleffler 06:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That is both smug and lacking in comprehension of the name. But because of the smugness of people like you, the American Anglicans made "The Episcopal Church in the United States of America" an official alternative name some decades ago, and now use that name in all official documents. The reason, historically, that the Episcopal Church in the USA was styled "The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America" was because, at the Revolution, there was no Established Church (as there was in England) and the Roman Catholic Church would also be "competing" on American soil. The name was chosen to distinguish the episcopal Church that was Roman from the episcopal Church that was Protestant-of-Rome. In addition, although Luther's 95 Theses gave further and catalytic impetus to the Reform movements that were welling-up on the European Continent, Luther's movement was by no means first. The Moravians had beat him to the punch. Moreover, unlike the Zwinglian, Calvinist, and other Reformers, Luther (with whose movement the Moravians eventually joined) steadfastly maintained that the churches that were joining with his movement were Catholic, but that they were strongly anti-papist and hence, Protestant of Rome. This distinction is true of the Lutheran movement and of the Anglican movement. Lutherans and Anglicans are Protestant of Rome, but hold that they adhere to the (true) Catholic faith. Presbyterians, Anabaptists, the Reformed Free Churches, etc. make no such claim. This is why Lutherans and Anglicans belong in their own category

Nrgdocadams 06:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

You admit that Lutherans and Anglicans are "Protestant of Rome", and yet you tried to move them out of the Protestant category? How does that make any sense? In any event, my copy of Concise Oxford defines Protestant as:

n. 1 a member or follower of any of the western Christian Churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church in accordance with the principles of the Reformation. [...]

adj. 1 of or relating to any of the Protestant Churches or their members etc.

You can't just make words mean whatever you want them to mean. This word has a clear definition and is in common usage. Any attempt to implicitly change that invariably violates WP:NPOV. --Srleffler 06:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with splitting Anglicans and Lutherans from the other Protestant churches as you have now done (and in fact I prefer it), as long as the meaning of the word "Protestant" is not obscured or redefined. BTW. I took out the "C.E." because the Wikipedia Manual of Style prescribes no suffix for dates in the current era.--Srleffler 06:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you have POV "issues" about this and that your complaints have to do with your biases. I don't think you ought to be a Wikipedia editor.

Nrgdocadams 06:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Nrgdocadams

Whether or not Anglicans or Lutherans are offended by the "Protestant" label is irrelevant on WP. They're Protestant. They arose during the Protestant Reformation. They formed, at least in part, out of a protest against Rome. If some Lutherans don't like the label (and mots that I know don't care one way or the other), that's not the issue...historians and scholars very much consider them Protestant. The same is true of Anglicans. So let's try and move on...but, by all means, on the articles for these groups, say something about some folks' objections to the Protestant label. Thanks...KHM03 11:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The other thing is that the current version is very POV.

Anglicanism and Lutheranism: This category includes those Communions which contend that they continue to hold the Catholic and Apostolic faith, reformed of Roman "abuses." Hence, they consider themselves to be both Catholic and Protestant. These groups separated from the Roman Catholic Church under the 16th-century influences of the European Continental Reformation, the English Reformation, or both. Also included in this grouping are the Moravians and the Lusitanians.

Other groups believe themselves to hold the Catholic and Apostolic faith, reformed of Roman "abuses" and consider themselves to be both Catholic and Protestant. These groups include Reformed, Evangelical, Charismatic, and Pentecostal; Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, and Anabaptists. And how on earth can we say that Lutheranism separated itself from the Lutheran Reformation? No, the whole thing is POV and inaccurate, and needs changed. KHM03 11:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KHM, if we cannot call Lutherans Protestants, who is left as Protestant. The only people I know who may object to such a classification are extreme Protestants who think Lutherans too moderate. But that is their POV - the truth is that Lutherans started the Reformation (that is not to say that they were the first Reformers - we have Reformers on either side, before Luther, and also strictly Catholic Reformers)

As for Anglicans: they started (if we take Edward or Elizabeth) as a Protestant Church, but later though about a via media developed and in the 19th Century Anglo-CAtholicism emerged. You may include a note to Anglicanism that states that it is not solely Protestant, but that doesn't mean it should form a group of its own.

Str1977 15:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the section contains the phrase:

Since the Reformation, Christianity is usually represented as being divided into three main branches...

That's fair...and also accurate. This isn't to say there aren't other branches of the tree (such as Mormonism), but this is the way Christian denominational families are "usually represented". KHM03 15:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Persecution the French Revolution and NPOV

I've twice removed references to persecution of Christians during the French Revolution and still think the sentence has no place in this section as it currently stands.

The reference is misleading as a glance at the Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution link will show. This page is about Christanity not just the RC church. The RC church in France at that time, was corrupt and immoral. If it had been any other religion committing the same crimes they would have suffered the same fate. It is only called Decristianisation because at that time, the RC church wealded enormous power was the biggest land owner. In actual fact it was anti all religions. For something to be NPOV the frame of reference must be taken into account. A popular name for an event is not necessarily a historically accurate and complete description of the occurances.

I am seriously concerned that the accuracy of statements in this page are only challenged when they are critical of Christianity. Editors fly out of the woodwork rightly demanding proof, details and specifics in the case of anti statements. Am I the only one who thinks that describing post French Revolution Europe as in the grip of a dechristianisation program is a generalisation and POV? The UK certainly never had such problems. The only references I can find to it relate specifically to France. France is NOT Europe and there is no evidence that it was part of a Europe wide resugence. The sentence as it currently stands implies a) that it was wide spread and b) that it was the restart of some previous Europe wide dechristanisation agenda. I would like to see specifics and references for both of these areas.

For this page to have any credibility the same standards must be applied to all. The discussions above show that such generalisations would not have survived the mainly RC editors of this page if the tables had been turned.SOPHIA 11:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Sophia, but your points don't make sense.

• Are Roman Catholics not Christians?
• Does it matter whether the Church was "immoral" or "corrupt" - and I sincerly challenge that observation in this general version, especially in regard to "crimes") and especially not as the reason for the persecution - the Church was not persecuted because of any (alleged) immorality, but because it wasn't in line with the revolutionaries' ideologies - I wouldn't think of sifting through the groups persecuted by Christians and decided who deserved it and who didn't and hence who should be included or not in this article.
• The sentence, at least according to my understanding or intention, does not say that there was a Europe wide persecution (though some measures were not restricted to France), but it says (or wants to say) that after centuries of Christian dominance, during which there was no persecution of Christians by non-Christians, this phenomenon resurfaced with the French Revolution. The "in Europe" means that it resurfaced in Europe (as opposed to the Islamic world, Japan, China) but it did not resurface everywhere in Europe.
• As for your observation, before I overhauled the persecution section it basically said: "Christians were sometimes persecuted by the Romans, but only because they were stupid, or camp, or deserved, but maybe they weren't even persecuted. Christians however persecuted a lot, all the time, ending with a bogus list." - You didn't speak up then.

As for the language issue, I will ask someone to have a look into whether my sentence says what it wants to say.

Str1977 12:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, SOPHIA, please read WP:AGF. Our Roman Catholic sisters and brothers - at least on this article - are fine editors who do good work. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt here.

I personally don't know much about the persecution of Christians during the French Revolution, though I've always thought that was a very "secular" revolt, if not altogether atheist. I may be wrong of course, and plead ignorance.

My personal view is that the persecution section is so contentious here, and we have at least two other articles which deal with the subject, so if anything there is challenged, best to get rid of it, whether it's favorable or opposed to Christianity. KHM03 12:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

KHM03, thanks for the flowers.

You are right that the FR was a secular revolt. It also had a totalitaristic approach and wanted to remake France according its ideas (most visible in Saint-Just). Opposing views had no place in the new France. That is the philosophical basis for this persecution (and part of that was the first genocide of modernity, in the Vendee). In France this lingered on way into the 20th century, though never again in the form of long-term direct persecution (the Commune was too short for that and 1905 didn't venture to go that far).

But the objective of my edit was not to discuss this all in breadth but to state that persecution of Christians after a long hiatus reappeared in the French Revolution (and later persecutions by totalitarian states all follow this model).

Str1977 12:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I am fully aware of WP:AGF. I said previously that the editors of this page rightly demand specifics and details. I also stand by the comment that a sentence of such general nature would not (rightly) have stood unchallenged by the most active editors on this page if it had been anti Christian. The term "resurfaced" implies that Europe was previously anti Christian. The Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution states that it was anticlerical (ie anti RC) not anti Christian. SOPHIA 12:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Again I ask you, Sophia: Are Catholics not Christians? If they are, what we have here is a state persecution of Christians (and these were Catholics, but there had been no other Christians in the land since Louis XIV). The term "resurfaced" does not imply, IMHO, what you think it does. Also, my edit was neither anti-Christian nor pro-Christian but just stating a simple fact, neither justifying nor dramatising or exaggerating or downplaying the persecution. Str1977 15:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, SOPHIA. I'm a bit puzzled by your objections to the inclusion of the French Revolution. You say that Catholics were persecuted because they were corrupt and immoral, and that "if it had been any other religion committing the same crimes they would have suffered the same fate." What crimes did the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne commit? Eleven nuns, three lay sisters, and two servants were guillotined; they sang hymns at the scaffold. They don't sound very corrupt to me. There's even an article about them at French Wikipedia.

You also seem to object to the inclusion of the French Revolution persecution of Catholics because this page "is about Christanity not just the RC church". I hope you're not implying that Catholic are not Christians. If they are, and they were persecuted, then Christians were persecuted.

As for "resurfaced", well, there had been persecution of Christians in European countries prior to the French Revolution, hadn't there? Didn't many countries martyr the Christians before Christianity became established?

Anyway, I've looked at the language carefully, and I don't see any hidden POV. AnnH ^(talk) 01:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the Nuns were wonderful people but they were guilotined for being Nuns - not Christians, for being part of a hierarchy that left the general populace starving and disaffected. The churches were full of wealth while the people starved - that is why they were a target, not for their religious beliefs. The purpose of the Revolution was to overthrow the institutions that the people saw as oppressing them - that included the Monarchy, the nobles and the Church. We introduce new and worry definitions of persecution (as well as opening a can of worms) if we class anyone who reacts against an authority that leaves them powerless and starving a "persecutor". That is why I object to its inclusion. I have no axe to grind or Church history to defend. I am genuinely surprised that this is proving so controversial which is why I am concerned at the heavy number of RC editors on this page.

As for Christian martyrs. They were generally in the 1st wave of Christians to Europe, when Christianity would have been seen as new and a challenge to the established authorities. Once they had dominance the only widespread persecutions of Christians in Europe, for theological reasons, were by other Christians. SOPHIA 08:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, even if your accusations were true in general, it still doesn't justify persecution and it doesn't justify leaving them out.

The Church was not attacked in the Revolution because of what you say but because of Enlightenment ideology and because the new rulers thought it proper to rob the Church of her property in order to solve the budget problems (while they at the same proclaimed the inviolability of their own property). The Church didn't cause any starving of the general populace. I agree that some of those involved thought as you think now and these saw King and Church as oppressive. It's not are business to worry about whether someone because of our definitions (and they are not new) may no longer rebel against authority. I am not picking sides right now regards the political event called French Revolution, but WP should neither adhere to the (sadly all too common) glorification of the revolution.

But be that as it may, it has no bearing on our actual conflict. Christians (and yes, nuns are Christians too (and they are not part of the hierarchy)) were persecuted, clergy, layman and religious people killed, their worship supressed, an entire province of France was depopulated. You say they deserved it - that is a monstrous view but you are free to adhere to it (and before my overhaul the Roman persecution section said the same: that Christians deserved it) - but your POV is no basis of excluding this act of persecution.

You are right about persecution of Christians by Christians, but that it why I wrote resurfaced: Christians were persecuted by the pagan state until 324. After that they were only "intra-Christian persecutions" (except in Persian or Islamic territory) until the French Revolution, which again had a non-Christian state persecuting Christians.

Facts are facts. You can chant "They deserved it, they deserved it!" all day long in front of your mirror, but that shouldn't govern our article. Str1977 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Accusation is a strong emotive word that really does not belong here. I, for my part, am trying to have an academic discussion about the definitions of persecution. I have not glorified the Revolution or said the Church deserved what happened to it. A revolution can only take place if you have a large body of people with nothing to lose, and ideologists who are smart enough to exploit them. The institutions with power in France at the time, the Monarchy, the Church and the nobles, caused the revolution - read the Wiki page. The Enlightenment came to the whole of Europe but only in France did it errupt into widespread bloody violence. No where did it lead to persecution of Christians by non Christians on the grounds of theology (no other non Christian body had enough power to do this). To use this as a "resufacing of persecution" is misleading. Previous to this, as you agree, there were isolated (ultimately failed) attempts to see off the new challenge of Christianity. From around the 4th century to the end of the 18th century Christianity of one form or another completely dominated Europe, branding any other religion (especially the older indigenous ones) heretical. These religions were then persecuted to nonexistence. It's hard to represent this fairly and in the style of an encyclopedia which is why I have never added to the "persecuted by Christians" list and will not until I am sure I can present it in a balanced way that will survive the editorship of this page.

Challenges to your POV are not accusations and it is worrying that you see this debate in that light.SOPHIA 10:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sophia,

"accusations" was probably not the best way to put it. I certainly didn't think you accused me. I meant this bundle of "grievances" laid at the church's doorstep, provided here by you but certainly not originated by you. And the "glorification" referred to a common understanding that revolutions and uprisings are always and entirely good (unless of course when they aren't) and authority is always bad. I agree, I too can relate to such a romantic sympathy for the rebel and to the joy of seeing a tyrant fall (I especially like accounts of Robespierre's fall) (Question remaines what is a tyrant and what is merely a ruler - I don't think Louis XVI was a tyrant in any way). There are two sides to the story. I thought I detected this common understanding in some of your comments. If I am wrong I gladly take it back.

I don't need to read the Wiki page on the FR (except for editing purposes) as this historian knows the issues well enough.

The revolution was in fact a boundle of revolutions: a rebellion of starving masses in Paris, a crisis of the political system, and some ideologists making the best of it for their cause.

The Enlightenment was a movement in the whole of Europe and some traits are common to every country but only in France did it have such a distinct anti-Christian bent (Emperor Joseph II and the Bavarian minister Montgelas were giving the Church a hard time too, but it didn't result in outright persecution).

As I said before, my edits don't want to say that there was persecution all over Europe - and Ann, whom I asked to have a look, agreed with my wording.

Of course, the reasons for the persecution were not entirely religious, but a bundle of religious, policial, economic, social issues, but the same can be said for earlier persecutions.

As for resurfacing: the FR set the model for modern-day persecutions, either attempted (Commune) or implemented (Lenin). Ideas of religious tolerance, also furthered by the Enlightenment, mostly kept these urges in check, but it did set a model.

In the final part of your post you are mixing up two things: heresies and pagan religions. Heresies, as false doctrines within Christianity, were persecuted, but they were mostly not "older indigenous" religions (exceptions surfacing in the few witch trials of the Middle Ages). These were not so much persecuted into extinction (though there have been some instances, e.g. Charlemagne's Saxon War or the "Wendish crusade", both controversial at their time) but rather were superceded by Christianity. Some have complaint about to many "pagan remnants" lingering on in popular religion. I don't think the complaint is very fitting but it can only be made because these "older indigenous" religions were not just stamped out.

I agree with you presenting information in a balanced way and I certainly could imagine including the FR passage in a ranting/POV way. But this is unacceptable here on WP or elsewhere and I don't think that I have done this. Str1977 10:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA, you seem to admit that the Carmelite martyrs of Compiègne were good, innocent people who did not deserve the death penalty, and that they were executed for being nuns, but you don't accept that as religious persecution. Surely the execution of nuns is a form of religious persecution? At the time when Catholics were persecuted in England (see here for a few examples) most of those executed were priests. But it was still a persecution of Catholics. And it's true that in a very few cases there were real examples of treason, and that some of the Catholics who were persecuted would not have been persecuted (or at least not to that extent) had it not been for the crimes of their fellow Catholics. Nevertheless, it is a fact that Catholics were persecuted in England at that time; we don't say that they deserved it because of Anthony Babington and Guy Fawkes. Let's put it this way — if a few members of a minority group committed a crime — let's say a group of black youths gang raped a white woman in a country where most people were white — and in the five years following that, hundreds of black people had their land and goods seized by the government, dozens were thrown into prison without trial, a few were executed on false charges, would you agree that black people were being persecuted? Do you dismiss the Salem Witch Trials on the grounds that some people really did attempt to conjure up the devil with the motive of harming their enemies? If groups of innocent people have their property confiscated and are imprisoned or executed, then that is persecution regardless of whether or not other people in the same category have committed crimes.

I'm not sure what the relevance is of your claim that it was not "persecution of Christians by non Christians on the grounds of theology". I have objected in the past to a redefinition of "persecution" to include things like uncharitable remarks made against a group, or job discrimination. But once groups of innocent people are thrown into prison and exectuted, not for crimes, but for belonging to a particular group, then it is persecution, regardless of whether or not they have intellectual discussions with their executioners about the two natures of Christ.

And if we agree that there were Christian martyrs in Europe prior to the French revolution, then it's perfectly appropriate to use the word "resurfaced". AnnH ^(talk) 10:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do I take it that you are advocating the repression of medieval Catholics in England should be added to the list of persecutions against Christianity even though it was committed by other Christians?

Your example above (the rape) is invalid to this dicussion as we are not talking about a few isolated incidents by individuals but of a national institute, with international backing that possessed great wealth and power and was overthrown. Real crimes were committed against real people but was it because of their Christianity or their association with a wealthy Church that stood by whilst people starved?

My point is that their Christianity was incidental to their persecution, they were persecuted for belonging to a powerful institution. I would not (and have never attempted to) argue with their place on the RC wiki page but that it is unrepresentative to put this on the all encompassing Christianity page.

Allowing loose and questionable definitions of persecution to stand will benefit nobody as everyone with a horror story will feel thay can add to the list. This is obviously an emotive subject so NPOV is all the more needed.SOPHIA 10:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sophia,

I don't think that Christianity was incidental as the campaign was directed against Christianity (in the only version existing in France, the RCC). People were persecuted because of their adherence to the Church and Christianity. If the persecutors considered the Church a criminal organisation worthy of persecuting because of real or alleged crimes that doesn't change the fact that they persecuted those standing by their convictions. The Roman Emperors (Nero, and most since Traian) considered the Church a criminal organisation and "being a Christian" a crime. Did the revolutionaries ask the Carmelites whether they committed any crimes? No, they told them give up their way of life (which is one of many ways of serving God, but it was the one these women had chosen).

No doubt the revolutionaries were exploiting the dire need of the populace but what did persecution and genocide help in that respect (yes, those killed no longer starve, but ...), especially since the starving and the persecuted might be the same people.

And no, we don't include Catholics persecuted under Elizabeth etc. here, as they were persecuted by other Christians. Yes, I consider them martyrs of the faith (but that's my Catholic POV), but they can and are included in the "persecution by Christians" section (under "dissenting Christian denominations and denominational strife"). The current distinction between the two section is a bit questionable in that regard, but I guess it's the best way to put it.

And finally, I don't think it is a loose definition of persecution. Mutatis mutandis, there was persecution of Christians by the state in 303 and in 1793. Str1977 11:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that perhaps Sophia may be trying to make distinction between someone being persecuted for their individually held, personal religious beliefs and expressions, and being persecuted for being a member of the Church, the outwardly visible, formal organization of Christians, which she describes as a corrupt institution at least in 18th century France. For many Protestants today that's an important distinction, but most Catholic and Orthodox Christians would say it's either a misleading or entirely false distinction. If a government were to announce, "You can be a Christian as long as you're not affiliated with this specifically named church," Protestants would for the most part easily switch denominations and be fine if theirs were targeted, but Catholics and Orthodox would be for the most part stuck, as were the nuns in France. Sophia, please correct me if I've misstated your position in any way. Wesley 13:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact that's somethin a left-wing politician in the 1905 separation hearings argued: "In France we guarantee freedom of conscience, but not freedom of religion. Someone may believe what he likes, but he is not guaranteed adherence to a certain corporation." (Paraphrased from memory) That's preposterous, of course.

As for the Catholic/Orthodox-Prostestant divide on this. Freedom of religion in my book means that the believer is free to pratice his religion as he understands it and hence this definition can be as broad or narrow as he thinks fit (including or not including Church structure). Hence, surpression of the Church is persecution. The French measures also didn't target only the institution - yes, you were not harmed if you kept your mouth shut, but if a believer protested he was targetted as well. Str1977 14:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The use of Nero persecuting the Christians is interesting as Nero had power and an army at his disposal and the Christians had neither wealth nor power. Their religious beliefs were a direct challenge to his status as a god like emperor and historical records show they were persecuted by him.

Nero persecuted Christians in Rome as a scapegoat to remove any rumours that he had set Rome on fire, and not because they denied him worship. Of course, that didn't increase his sympathy for them.

Pre revolutionary France was a different matter see Status of religious freedom in France. For the Catholics quite the reverse, in fact the wiki page on the French Revolution lists religious intolerance as one of the main causes of the Revolution. This was due to persecution of other faiths and other Christian denominations by the French RC Church (see Jansenism and Huguenots for example). The post Revolution 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen guaranteed religious freedom for all for the first time, where that freedom did not impact on others. For example Jews were only granted French citizenship after the Revolution - hardly the work of an "anti religion" regime.

The Church was defenseless against the French state as well, as the king was held captive. Intolerance, though part of the reason why Enlightenment writers had a dislike for the Church, are not directly a reason for the revolution. Persecutory measures by the Church were seldom in the 18th century (and when they did occur they attracted even more condemnation, e.g. by Voltaire). The Revolution proclaime freedom of conscience and religion, but it took some time for them to realise that this included Catholics as well (in fact, most didn't realise at all, it was Napoleon's realpolitik that opened the way to the concordat). Jews, as individuals, were granted individual civic rights (first the Sephardi, then the Ashkenazi), but under the famous motto: "To them as individuals everything, to them as a people nothing". This has nothing to do with sympathy for the Jews and religion in general and anyway was an early measure when the anti-Christian mood wasn't as strong as later. (And note, anti-Christian is not anti-religion - Robespierre tried to introduce a "Cult of the Supreme Being", others dedicated temples to "Reason". It is persecution of Christians we are talking about, not of all religions.

Thanks to Wesley for helping me clarify my point. Yes you are right, my point is that they were targeted for belonging to an institution that had enormous wealth and power - the French RC Church. If they had been non wealthy and non powerful they would have been left alone - I am unaware and can find no records of the organised persecution of Protestants (or any other Christian denominations) during the Revolution - can anyone give examples? For that matter any other religions?

That is all beside the point. There was a persecution of Christians (namely RCs, Protestants were not avaiable "thanks" to Louis XIV), even under an explicite anti-Christian banner. Other religions don't matter either. Or are you saying that Nero did not persecute Christians because he did not persecute the Jews either.

For this to stand on the Christianity page rather than the Roman Catholicism page it must be shown that they were persecuted for being Christians rather than the unfortunate victims of a backlash against an institution the taught poverty and humility yet wealded enormous wealth and power. An institution that had not granted religious freedom to others.

Sorry, but your bias shows through your comments. All these things are beside the point. After centuries we had a non-Christian state persecuting Christians under the banner of "dechristianisation". Period.

I voice my original concerns that the lack of perspective shown in this discussion is due to the religious loyalties of the editors which is POV.SOPHIA 16:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that you can't the facts as they stand. I suspect it has do with bias of another kind. Str1977 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

According to Dechristianisation of France during the French Revolution, measures taken against Christians including abolishing the word dimanche (Sunday), abolishing the Sabbath, and forbidding any public display of the Christian Cross, and the proposal of two alternate religions. This doesn't sound like a victory of Huguenots over Roman Catholics, but more like a victory of atheists over Christians. Like the Julian the Apostate, they were apparently content to promote any religion or no religion at the expense of Christianity, so it's not surprising that Jews enjoyed greater freedom at this time. Wesley 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting thought, taken from Edmund Burke. The revolutionaries accused Catholics of intolerance. Burke said that the grand-children of those who had murdered the Hugenots in 1572 (the mob of Paris, directed by the government) now took revenge on behalf of these Hugenots and massacred others who can hardly be blamed for crimes committed 200 years before the were born. Str1977 17:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I mention POV only in relation to perspectives on this article about all denominations of Christianity. Yes I have a POV but that does not include allegiance to any particular version of history. I will not take part in a discussion that begins to get very personal - of the "why can't you just face facts" type. When reasoned arguments break down there is nothing to be gained by anyone.

Sophia, I am sorry if you feel attacked, but I must remind you that you suggested that opposition to your view was based on "religious loyalties of the editors which is POV". Let me assure you that nothing was intended personally.

I have made the best non personal, academic case that I can for the position that Christians were not persecuted during the French Revolution. The French Roman Catholic Church suffered a violent and bloody backlash after centuries of persecution of other faiths - you admit there were no Protestants left but you blame Louis XIV - did the RC Church stand up for their fellow Christians?

I never said that the RCC in France (or anywhere) was spotless (though it was Louis XIV who kicked out the Hugenots, rightly considering such a move to be popular (so no protests) but also increasingly interfered into Church matters (Jesuits, Jansenists etc).

But all true or untrue accusations cannot remove the fact that there were persecutions.

Even a backlash persecution is persecution. Should we say there was no persecution of pagan cults after the 4th century because it was a backlash.

I do not dispute that unjust murders were carried out by the Revolutionaries.

I do not claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians (I do not have a POV on this) but some other groups that would describe themselves as Christian would dispute this. Since this is a page about Christianity as a whole this should be born in mind.

They might, but that is their (extreme) POV.

The position of the editors of this page seems to be that any Christian denomination with wealth and power can persecute others (including other Christians) to nonexistence (without mention in the article), and yet when the evitable backlash occurs they become "persecuted Christians" (which can be mentioned in the article).

Where did you get the idea from that we don't mention this in the article. Have you read the second part of the persecution section.

Banning PUBLIC displays of the cross and the word "Sunday" over a period of 6 years is the best example of exclusively Christian discrimination that has come forward so far.

No, no. We had destruction of monasteries, confiscation and desecration of basilicas, killings of clerics, religious, laypeople, ... and the genocide in the Vendee.

No examples of the murder of any one of a religious group other than Roman Catholic have been given (so far).

That argument only works if a) Catholics are not Christians (which you didn't subscribe to) or b) one set of Christians persecuted another set of Christians and hence the issue was not Christianity. Neither is the case here.

I will bow out of this discussion at this point as I have nothing to new add and as I said previously I do not like the emotive, personal and totally inappropriate language that is starting to be used.SOPHIA 18:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am saddened that it ends this way but I can't help it. Believe me some of the things you said were not very gentle either, be it to other editors or to Christians in general. Str1977 19:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"It's the true religion."

Whoever keeps on adding it please stop. There is no "one true religion" and that statement introduces POV. Please stop now. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That user has just been blocked. AnnH ^(talk) 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I warned first. Their response strikes me as a little odd. Jkelly 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There are two socks already blocked, expect more to show up. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I semi-protect the page? I'm going to bed in the next few minutes, and I don't want to lock out good-faith contributors? AnnH ^(talk) 00:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Following the appearance of more sockpuppets, I have semi-protected the page, which means that IPs and newly-registered users can't edit. As I said, I don't want to lock out genuine contributors. I'll be going to bed in about twenty minutes from now. Should I unprotect then? Zach, will you still be around? AnnH ^(talk) 01:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

He has moved over to Evangelicalism now. AnnH ^(talk) 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to be here, but I am also watching Hero of Ukraine (my baby is on the front page). Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I have just unprotected, and am going to bed now! AnnH ^(talk) 02:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected again

I just semi-protected again. If those people who are watching this article would please keep an eye on Evangelicalism, that would be great. Thanks. Jkelly 03:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed it again. Jkelly 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd check on that, someone resemi'd it 209.103.214.50 18:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

History rewrite

I did a rewrite of the history section, as I didn't like the style and also felt some things missing, mainly: the origins and separation from Judaism, the theological debates (heresies), monasticism, scholasticism, the relationship of the two powers and ecumenism.

Any suggestions for further improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with your rewrite except for this bit: In the 20th century, the Ecumenical movement came to importance. The phrase "came to importance" just doesn't sound right. I didn't edit that, although I think it needs to be changed more than the things I did change. But I wasn't quite sure enough of the background to the Ecumenical movement to be able to think of an absolutely appropriate substitute. Depending on the extent to which ecumenism existed before becoming important, and the level of importance it achieved, I'd suggest: started, flourished, developed, blossomed, was established, etc. But I'd rather leave the lexical choice to someone who knows more about the subject. AnnH ^(talk) 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "...came to prominence"? I think that "importance" is a little too subjective a word, "prominence" is easier to document and verify. Wesley 01:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Giovanni, apart from any disputed about the content of your edits, consider the following points:

• This is the general article on Christianity with a short historical overview. It should give a brief overview of the history of Christianity from the origins until now.

Excatly what my contributions do. Its a very very brief touching on the historical origins of the beliefs and practices

It is not meant as a platform to argue theories, even valid ones. But without arguing them, especially since they are contentious, it becomes even more POV.

No, but its common practice to mention the scolarly discussion regarding the subject matter, not to argue theories (I dont do that). To exclude this subject matter is POV. Only the Christian churces and their advocates want to exclude this topic, and have done so historically.

The last sentence is a straw man. It is common practice to mention scholarly discussion but you're not doing that. You presenting extreme theories, often in quite POV language, intermingled with legends invented "in darker days" (e.g. the blind faith passage).

• The conflict with Islam is a most important feature for world history in general and for the history of Christianity in particular. There's absolutely no removing it.

The most important feature? Wow. What makes it so important? If you want to keep it I'm fine with with that.

Please read more carefully: "a most important feature" - it's a elative not a superlative.

• "The early Christians heavily relied on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the west as the Septuagint." is a true statement but no way to start the history section. I even doubt it needs to be included at all.

Yes, I originally only stated the Hewebrew Bible, but this change was made in response to an objection by Wesley. It fits in very well with starting my section of the origins since Judiasm comprises the bulk of the influences of the early Christians, infact it was little more than just a Jewish sect(s) for some time.

The "Koine" passage is totally out of place and has no part in such a historical overview. Wesley may have raised the point that the Christian Bible was Greek and not Hebrew but I'm not sure that he wanted it included like this.

• IMHO the history section is better placed further down, next to the "persecution" section.

I disgaree IMHO. Its better on top right after the overview since it flows logically into the chart that shows the origins from Early Christianity, and ties in nicely with my origins of for the ideas of early Christianity. Also, I think is important and one of the most neglected (supressed) elements in understanding Christianity so therefore should be make promiment.

Finally here are some statements or should I say pronouncement where a (contentious, not generally accepted) POV is declared fact:

• "the major Christian doctrines also emerged, in part, out of the various mystery teachings

That is true. I gave references for this. They did emerge. Fact. They emerged out of different influences. Fact. Some of these influences were the various mystery teachings. Fact according to most scholars. I'll concede to a language change here to reflect that we are not sure 100%, such as the word "may have been, or probably."

You gave some references for that. No one doubts that some hold this. But it is not consensus. It is not extreme to say that there was some influence on form, language or even some doctrines, but note that you said "the major Christian doctrines ..."

*"In its early years, there was not one Christianity"

Fact. This is really undisputed as far as I know, except from dogmatic faith which is blind to facts anyway. They insist there was only one "true" Christianity and all others are not really Christians. This is pure POV and has no place here. See Mika's comments below that quotes from some of the sources I have used and cited.

Your statement is not less dogmatic. Your statement can be understand in a proper way, in other words that the various Christian congregations geographically separated increased contact with each other and hence a "one Christendom" developed. But you are saying that it Christianity existed as some assembly of various religions. That is not true and it is not consensus.

• "may have existed as a variety of mystery cults, limited to a small number of people and expounding esoteric teachings."

Ok, i agree here. I think this should be changed. Instead of saying existed as, it should state that it emerged along side and with "a vareity of mystery cults," many of which converted into Christitans and helped to influence its developing ideas and practices."

• "The basic church hierarchy did not fully establish itself until perhaps as late as the 4th century with ..."

Fact with greater clarifcation needed, perhapds. Since there was no one Christianity there was no one central chuch heiarchy to consolidate ideas and dinfine itself clearly. This happened in the 4th century. Before then it was very decentralized.

Centralization (and in fact it was not centralized in the 4th century) is not the same as the existence of a church hierarchy - we are talking local bishops here, with priests and deacons under them. We see hierarchy in the letters to Timotheus, in the letters of Ignatius and other writings. Granted, we cannot prove a comphrehensive hierarchical organisation of all churches everywhere (but we cannot disprove it either) but to place hierarchy into the 4th century is based on prejudice.

And note your circular reasoning "Since there was no one Christianity there was no one central chuch heiarchy" - if that is the basis for your above claim that there was no one Christianity than I agree with that claim but also say that it's poorly (or POVly) worded.

Other inaccuracies include:

• "Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus" - now, I don't know the Nasseni, but the Essenes were no mystery cult at all, the Gnostics are they one you are talking about and Dionysus is a pagan god.

I'm afraid you are the one that has it wrong. Dionysus was pagen, yes, and Christianity was a development of it, at least according to many scholars. It is also a god of mystery religious rites, such as those practiced in honor of Demeter and Persephone at Eleusis near Athens. In the Thracian mysteries, he wears the "bassaris" or fox-skin, symbolizing new life. His own rites the Dionysian Mysteries were the most secretive of all (See also Maenads) Many scholars believe that Dionysus is a syncretism of a local Greek nature deity and a more powerful god from Thrace or Phrygia such as Sabazios. Likewise with the Essense. As the Sons of Light, this reflected an influence from Zoroastrianism via their parent ideology of Pythagoreanism. According to Larson, both the Essenes and Pythagoreans resembled thiasoi, or cult units of the Orphic mysteries. Similiaries between both of these mystery cults and Christianity is evidence of their influences.

I'm afraid you didn't understand what I wanted to say: Dionysus is a pagan god and not the cult worshipping him. That was a mere linguistic blunder and I should have explained it better.

Unfortunately you don't address my other points. I reiterate: the Essenes were no mystery cult.

• You are confusing the conflict of early Christianity with Gnosticism etc. (2nd and 3rd century) with the time of Christianity's legalization and establishment.

Nope, I'm not confusing it, im connecting the struggle with its absorbtion. The two, as I have argued, are not mutually exclusive.

You are. You are suggesting that Gnosticism was a perfectly valid and accepted form of Christianity until the Church, having come to power under Constantine, stamped it out. That's a common misconception but it's not true. The intellectual/theological conflict was already "very old news" when Constantine converted - there was nothing left to decide in that regard.

Maybe you should consider editing on Gnosticism, since what you put forth is referring almost exclusively to Gnosticism.

Not exclusively Gnostic, at all. I touched on all the influences that scholarship is thinks to have played a role in the development of Chrisitian ideas, and I state as much.

The thing is that these influences, as you cite them, all do apply to Gnosticism, regardless of which paradigma you take in regard to that phenomenon. But to make Gnosticism, with its fragmented groups, its arcane teaching, its anti-materialism the norm of Christianity is not proper. Str1977 09:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I know you won't agree with my points on the content, but at least consider the problems of form. Thank you, Str1977 16:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome, and yes, I'll consider the problems of form and address those in my lastest edits. 64.121.40.153 08:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

I agree, especially about the problem of stating as fact things that are disputed (e.g. "In its early years, there was not one Christianity"). Even if we firmly believe that something is true, it's against Wikipedia policy to state it as fact if it's disputed. That may be the hardest part of WP:NPOV policy to accept. AnnH ^(talk) 00:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. This is Mika, and I disagree. I have been following with some interst Giovanni's arguments, and looking up his references. I've been reading and learning a lot and wish to thank him for his contributions.

From my readings, I have found that while some of Giovanni's statements are contentious points in scholarship in that they apper to be asserted by a minority of biblical scholars throught the ages (probably because most such specialists have do have a pro-christian bias and a minority are from a secular point of view). But, this is not itself reason to exclude them from here---merely change the language to reflect this. I'll try to do that.

However, other poitns are certainly widely accepted as facts, and I think can be stated as facts. I disagree with Star1977 list of what he thinks are not generally accepted and thus POV if stated as a fact. For example, one source that I respect is the well known site www.religioustolerance.org I don't think anyone where would disgree with their NPOV mission, "We try to describe all viewpoints on controversial religious topics objectively and fairly." I think they do a great job at neutrality by including all points of view and separate what is commonly accepted by most scholars with elements that are disuted, listing the alternative views. They are a model to be emulated for this encylopeida not only for their NPOV but also becaue its well referenced.

What I do find interesting is that they list among those things that are widely accepted many of the same claims that Giovanni is making here but which others are saying is either not accurate or POV. I think to them it is POV becaue they are pusing their own brand and understanding of Christianity, but that is not NPOV. I don't think this is deliberate. To quote the site again, "Many Christians are aware of their own denomination's current beliefs, but are unfamiliar with the history of those beliefs, or of the teachings of other denominations. Many Christians have never been taught how their own denomination's beliefs developed down through the centuries." I want to quote from this site to prove my point, that a lot of what Giovanni states is widely accepted facts and not as Star put its--"contentious, not generally accepted) POV." Below are stated as generally accepted facts. In their words,"It is not a simple task to write about Christianity. There are on the order of 1,500 different Christian faith groups in North America which promote many different and conflicting beliefs. Further, many groups believe that they alone are the "true" Christian church and that all of the others are in error. As a result, one cannot write an introduction or a history of Christianity that is acceptable to all faith groups. The following is supported by historical evidence and is probably agreeable to most."

"Historians speak of many Christian faith groups teaching conflicting views of Jesus, God, morality, religious obligations, etc. Men and women led house churches. No central authority existed; the congregations were almost completely decentralized."

"In addition to Gnostic, Jewish, and and Pauline Christianity, there were many other versions of Christianity being taught. Often, there would be a number of conflicting Christianities being propagated within a single city. After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Army in 70 CE, the Jewish Christian movement was largely dissipated. Gnostic leaving Pauline and Gnostic Christianity as the dominant groups. Gentiles within the movement took over control of the former movement. The Roman Empire recognized Pauline Christianity as a valid religion in 313 CE. Later in that century, it became the official religion of the Empire. Church authority became concentrated among the five bishops or patriarchs located in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. Gnostic Christianity was severely persecuted, both by the Roman Empire and the Pauline Christian churches. It was almost exterminated, but is experiencing rapid growth today. With the expansion of Islam throughout the Middle East during the seventh century CE, power became concentrated in Constantinople and Rome. These two Christian centers gradually grew apart in belief, and practice. In 1054 CE, a split was formalized between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches; their leaders excommunicated each others. The split remains in effect today. Efforts are being made to heal the division. However, they are making little progress." http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_intr.htm

"Christendom has not been a unified movement throughout most of its history. With the possible exception of a few years circa 31 CE, from the execution of Jesus to the conversion of Paul, there have always been at least two competing faith groups which seriously, devoutly, thoughtfully and prayerfully believed themselves to be true Christianity. A broad overview of Christian history follows:

1st century CE: There were at least three distinct divisions within the Christian movement: the Jewish Christians (led by Jesus' brother James, with Jesus' disciples, and their followers), Pauline Christians (followers of St. Paul) and Gnostic Christians (people who believed that salvation came through secret knowledge). Each believed themselves to be the true church, and were highly critical of the other two.

4th century CE: The Roman Emperor Theodosian issued a series of decrees to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions." 2 The church used the power of the state to begin programs to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians. Church authority had became concentrated in the five bishops or patriarchs located in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. Although they were officially given equal status, the Bishop of Rome was considered the first among the equals. 3

6th century CE: Only Pauline Christianity had survived in the Mediterranean area, in the form of a deeply divided Catholic church. Gnostic Christianity had been suppressed; Jewish Christianity had died out. There were independent Christian groups in Egypt, India and elsewhere which were not part of Catholicism.

1054 CE: The great schism formally divided Christendom into two main groups: Roman Catholicism in western Europe, and the Eastern Orthodox churches in the east.

1517 CE: Martin Luther triggered the Protestant Reformation.

16th century to the present time: Protestantism fragmented into more than a dozen families of denominations, and thousands of individual faith groups -- over 1,000 in North America alone. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_true.htm

In any large city of the Roman Empire, there were often religious leaders from each of these three movements -- and probably more -- teaching their own conflicting views on Christianity. Although the Jewish Christian and Gnostic movements were eventually scattered and/or exterminated, the successor to Pauline Christianity survived, and became the established church. However, it later split into thousands of Christian faith groups with competing beliefs and practices. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi1.htm

"Gnostics believe that they have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the universe of which the general population was unaware. It became one of the three main belief systems within 1st century Christianity, and was noted for three factors which differed from the two other branches of Christianity: Novel beliefs about Gods, the Bible and the world which differed from those of other Christian groups. Tolerance of different religious beliefs within and outside of Gnosticism. Lack of discrimination against women.

A belief that salvation is achieved through relational and experiential knowledge. In the words of The Gnostic Apostolic Church, humanity needs to be awakened and brought "to a realisation of his true nature. Mankind is moving towards the Omega Point, the Great day when all must graduate or fall. This day is also the Day of Judgment in that only those who have entered the Path of Transfiguration and are being reborn can return to the Treasury of Light." 2 The movement and its literature were essentially wiped out before the end of the 5th century CE by mainline Christianity heresy hunters. Its beliefs are currently experiencing a rebirth throughout the world."

As you can see, these gives support for Giovanni's submissions and I vote that they be included, since it appears to be historical true facts: there was NOT one Christianity. There were several. Sure, each church believes itself to be the one and true and only chruch but that is just their dogma and POV--its not historical fact. Historical fact is that there were many. Its POV to say that these others were not really Christians. Infact, that is what many churches today say of the Catholic Church that its not really Christian but Pagan. Well these are POV's. Much of what Giovanni has argued for is historical fact and thefore I will try to work it in the history/origins section much in the same way that www.religioustolerance.org goes. MikaM 04:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Mika

I request unprotection so I can continue to make edits here. I have before but I was doing so without registering my own account. Thanks. MikaM 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) This can be verfied by looking at my ip address 69.107.7.138 05:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Mika

Thanks, Mika for your words of support. I think the truth shall prevail as facts are stubborn things. They dont go away. I have added the section after doing a lot of work to it based on these comments, my own above, and those of critics. I found some areas of weakness where my critics were correct (see above) and made those changes. If there are other and further issues, we can iron those out as well. This history and origins section, as it stands now, I think is very well done, in no small part thanks to the very critics who probably rather not see any such topic explicated at all. hehe Giovanni33 10:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored the earlier version...

I restored the information with some more changes per below.

1. I don't mind mentioning the importance of Greek philosophy (esp. Plato) on Christian theological development, but the section about "continuity" is poorly worded (from a grammatical standpoint) and doesn't make clear what that continuity is; there are also some elements of discontinuity (is that a word?) between Christian theology and Greek philosophy, so we ought not overstate the issue.

Thanks, I’ll work on addressing this point. Its better if you leave it on the main page so that others can have a chance at editing with improvements in the grammer. No sense to keep taking it down each time so in effect im the only one working on it. Putting the POV tag is good enough; we should avoid reverts.

2. Camille Paglia is no more an authority deserving mention than my mailman. No reason at all to mention her. Why not bring in some recognized authorities and see what they think? The truth is that they disagree with Paglia. Again, no need to mention her or her POV, which is barely academic (re: Christian history) and completely non-authoritative.

This is an amazing stance you have on trying to knock down Paglia and I’m interested on what basis you can possibly maintain it. Last time I checked my mailman was not a published university professor in the Humanities. Paglia is. Infact this American scholar, a 'disciple of the Cambridge School of Anthropology,” influenced the teaching of humanities in American academe itself, advocating that comparative religion, art history and the close reading of canonical literature be brought to the center of education, with greater attentiveness toward chronology and facts in the student's approach to history. In addition to having written five books, she continues to write articles and reviews for popular media and scholarly journals, such as her long article, "Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s", published in the classics and humanities journal Arion in winter 2003. In September 2005, she was named one of the "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" in the world, in a list compiled jointly by editors of the journals "Foreign Policy" and "The Prospect" (UK). The list, which included only 10 women, also included feminist thinkers Germaine Greer, Martha Nussbaum, and Julia Kristeva. Its without question tht Paglia is a recognized authority and she write very well on the subject at hand and in no way comparable to your mailman. Also, I have brough in many, many other authorities with agree with Paglia. The problem you have is that these are all non-Christian authorities who are willing to go outside of the box imposed by Church orthodoxy, hence they are not deserving mention anymore than your mailman. But such is pure POV.

3. The repeated use of the phrase "Many scholars" is troubling. First, it leads the reader to believe that these "out there" views (re: mystery religions) are mainstream and generally accepted (which is completely untrue). Second, it saves us from having to "name names". Why not name a few mainstream historians who can support this theory? That's not asking for much.

If these “out there” views are not generally accepted then please cite your sources that make this claim, since you claim its completely untrue. I have already cited the many scholars who do support this view. Its only “out there” from the persepctive of relgious devotees who are boxed in by the narrow confines of their religious adherence. However, such folks won’t even talk about this area, and their exclusion of it is noteworthy of their bias. I’ll be happy to include some of the scholars aby names as examples, if you prefer for the points. I would even be willing to state that it is disputed by relgious biblical scholars, as well. The point here is that suppression of non-chritian orthodoxy pertient to the subject does not promote neutrality, it kills it.

4. As stated previously, the "mystery religions" thing was way overstated. Mention it as an influence and move on...no need to overstate it.

Ok, I’ll re-work it to tone down this point where appropriate as futher compromise.

5. "The resulting orthodoxy emphasised blind faith, which "renders the impossible possible "(Mark ix. 23, 24), produced a thnking that deprecated learning, as was shown by Draper ("History of the Conflict between Science and Religion") and by White ("History of the Warfare of Science with Theology") a craving for the miraculous and supernatural created ever new superstitions, under the form of relic-worship from old pagan forms of belief. In the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed." This is a perfect example of the problems we're having here. First, it's inaccurate. Secondly, the supporting citations are from obscure figures who are not historical authorities. But when one accepts obscure scholarship, problems arise.

I disagree. Its not inaccurate. Its very accurate. Please make your case that this is not accurate. Also, these scholars are historical authorities. Make your case why there work and creditials are not worthy to be considered authoritative. The above passage, is infact taken from an encylopeia in the respected Jewish Encylopedia written by the American scholar Kaufmann Kohler. See, here we have a religious scholar, but the reason why this reglious authority will be rejected is not because he is not scholarly but because he is not a Christian one. Kaufmann is Jewish, was the president of the Hewbrew College in Cincinatti. His writings include Backwards or Forwards: Lectures on Reform Judaism, Jewish Theology Systematically and Historically Considered, Heaven and Hell in Comparative Religion, and the Origins of the Synagogue and the Church. I understand that adherents to the Christian Church won't like what this passage its an accurate assessment of the school of Christian thought that was ultimately triumphant and helps explain the terror and persecution the Christians imposed on others, culminated in the worst period of human history known as the Dark Ages.

6. Finally, the piece offered by Giovanni is simply too lengthy. We need a brief overview...History of Christianity can give a lengthier treatment. KHM03 11:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a very brief overview only. I’ve checked the other languages article on Christianity and this is of comparable length. This is ont too lengthy, esp. considering its illumination.

Giovanni33 01:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Paglia is, as you say, a professor of humanities. But that doesn't make her an expert or authority on Christian history. My concern is not POV -- there are authorities and experts who are far from orthodox whose work I accept in various fields (Marcus Borg, for instance, in "Jesus research"...well, the Jesus Seminar in general). I would accept Borg (for instance) as an authority in that field, but not in terms of, say, Reformation history or Marxist economics. Related fields to Jesus research? Possibly. But he's not expert in all of them. Paglia isn't an accepted authority in Christian history. You and I can't change that. KHM03 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Kaufmann may be a very well respected scholar of Judaism...I've no idea. But that doesn't make him an authority on Christian history. Can you cite some more mainstream, acknowledged experts? If the perspective is as accurate and as prevalent and as accepted as you claim, that couldn't be too difficult. KHM03 01:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, the entire article may not be too lengthy, but this section is a brief overview, pointing the reader to the History article, where these ideas have more room for development. KHM03 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your objections about consensus raise an underlying question: how do we know what the scholarly consensus is on a given issue? You imply that most professional biblical scholars are in disagreement with the conclusions of the academics I have cited. Well, how do you know this to be true? How do we determine when there is a consensus? Who is to judge who qualifies as a a suitable authority enough for me to use here? It seems you limit this to only Christians? At least that is the only ones you have cited as examples of "mainstream" who you would accept. I have cited an abundance of scholars, but to you they are “obscure.” You keep saying my claims are inaccurate, etc, but you failed to cite any scholar which supports your claims. Please quote them, even if they are Christians, to make your case? I don't want anything that is not accurate either.

I am willing to bet that there are consensus positions among scholars on a few basic issues but if this claim were challenged, how would to demonstrate it? The standard method in scholarly writing is to fill our footnotes with references pro and con on a given position. But this counts only published opinions. It would be fascinating to see poll on a broad range of basic questions. That would give us some hard data from which to assess where the consensus positions are. But even this would have weaknesses. The matters that I bring forward are not really in the category for super specialized knowledge. They are not, for example, things like the controversial issues in historical Jesus research project like the issue regarding status of the Gospel of Peter, i.e. whether it contains early and independent tradition, or whether all of it is late and wholly dependent on the canonical gospels? In this matter, even biblical scholars themselves are challenged by others as not being expert enough with the required specialized knowledge for these questions, but they still speak on them with authority. So should we give credence only to the consensus among experts? If so, who decides who is on the list of these acceptable experts? Again, the topics I raise, on the other hand are of such a general nature with weak language (“influenced”, “developed along side of”, etc) that certainly a professor of Humanities is expert enough of an to speak on the question with enough authority. Likewise, the Jewish scholar I noted is even more so. It’s strange to discount him on the basis that his specialty is not with Christian history, per se. bu that of Jewish history. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, and esp. in this matter dealing with the origins of Christianity the expertise in Judaism is one and the same as that of Christian history for this period—they cross and lap over each other for this areas, and have just as much authority as an expert. And, I suggest that in the absence of reliable statistical data you cannot claims with any assurance at all what the consensus views are, much less discount my scholars as obscure as evidence that what I say is inaccurate, esp. when you fail to cite any scholars with specific refutations of my contributions. At least show me where any of your "mainstream" scholars speak to the connections I raise one way or another. If they don't then we can hardly rely on their absence of addressing these issues as evidence that they are not true. Such would be illogical esp. in light of the scholars I have cited.

I note that you removed everything once again, and I’ll go back and make further changes to incorporate them since they are part of the breif summary sections on history and origins but not so brief as they dont even mention these important origins of modern Christianity. Giovanni33 04:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Mika, and welcome! Just two things. First, I'm sorry about the semiprotection. I have unprotected several times, but each time, the vandalism starts again. I'm going to try again now, but if it starts again, I may have to reprotect. In any case, since you are now a registered user, you should find that you're able to edit semiprotected pages quite soon. I'm not sure how many days it takes. The other thing is that Wikipedia does not share your high opinion of the Religioustolerance.org website. Please see here, where it says that that site should never be used to source information in Wikipedia articles. Cheers. AnnH ^(talk) 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

True about religoustolerance.org, however I note that like our own very dear site here which is also created by regular folks, I found the information to be reliable, and NPOV--even more so. The good thing is that they cite references, so we can rely on those references, which are valid for Wikipedia purposes here. The information you prested from that site, as far as I know, are not diputed among scholars. Giovanni33 01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not address the various issues of contention right now and the alleged authority of the voices cited, but merely say this:

• this is a brief and concise overview of Christianity's history. If all Giovanni posted were generally accepted, the best we could do for him is include one or two sentences about mystery cults (that's what I meant with arguing theories - we don't have room here to do this). As his posts are not generally accepted it shrinks down to a brief reference.
• Also, consider that you constantly remove the secular conflict between Christianity and Islam from the history alltogether, and this to create space for contentious theories.

Str1977 09:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It is brief, as it stand with the inclusion of a brief summary of the history and origins. Infact, it's less than half the size of the "Differences in Beliefs" section. It is also in keeping the the size in other language version of the same subject. Also, I only intentionally removed the Islam section because I didn't think it was that important a point, however but I'm fine if you want to keep it. Just restore that part without taking out all the other sections on the origins. 64.121.40.153 09:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the section on Islam and removed some parts of my own section. 64.121.40.153 10:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

I reverted and restored to verstion with more information (Giovanni's). I noticed that those reverting his work to an earlier version also wiped out a lot of other important parts, including even the history chart for some reason, and when Giovani restored it they revereted again without any answer here to the ongoing discussions. This is counter productive. Before reverting work, please at least make the case here and respond here first.

While some of Giovanni's material might be contentious removing it is also obviously contentious. I think Giovanni has made a strong case that it should not be excluded. The latest objection over lenght seems to be a ruse. I dont find it too long. If it's still a POV issue, then make the case here and lets fix it as he has been asking above. I see him making a good faith effort to reach consensus and compromise and addresses each point while the other side often does not. From being an impartial observer it seems the problem with POV here is that there are many Christians who are letting their POV to take over. I'm following with interest and want to add my vote not to keep reverting his interesting and referenced additions to section. Maybe we need to divide the section into two parts: influences/origins of ideas, and history? Lets all get along and respect each others work. 38.114.145.148 13:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Belinda

Have I protected or semiprotected?

I've semiprotected again (sigh). But, unlike the other times, when I went to edit the page to add the semiprotected template, I got a message saying that it had been protected so that only admins could edit it. I checked to see if I had accidentally selected full protection, but I hadn't. Can a fully-registered non-admin (sorry to be so patronizing!) let me know if you still see "edit this page"? There might be some kind of software bug. Thanks. AnnH ^(talk) 15:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you are right, it is a software bug. It is in the process of being fixed. I'll see if I can find the bugzilla query. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, LV. Should I unprotect in the meantime? I don't want to lock out genuine contributors? And I note that he/she has moved (again) to Evangelicalism. I've done a lot of indefinite blocks recently! AnnH ^(talk) 15:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you semi-protected it perfectly, and since they are still around, I'd say it wouldn't hurt to leave it with SEMI for now. You can see some discussion of the "Protected message" here (near bottom) or here. Hope this helps. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)