Talk:Body of Christ

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

The Body of Christ[edit]

The body of christ work together —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


The "Body of Christ" is a concept explicitly brought out in the Bible. So, it is incorrect to make this seem like a teaching exlusive to the "local churches". --SeekingOne 03:43, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Thats right, now the article looks better and its also true that local church movement is focused on Body of Christ and Church Life. This term (B of C) is relatively new in the sense that just a century and half ago no Christians group were talking or serious on "Body of Christ." But today, almost all the churches seems to have a revival in this area.HopeChrist (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


What are you talking about? It was talking about ALL churches (whether Baptist, Episcopal, Church of Christ, etc.) That term used there "local churches" was not talking about the movement. Be sure you read all the information on a page and content around it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 02:28, 31 October 2005 MRMeetze

Mr Meetze, why don't you check and see how the article read when I made my comment (almost a year ago), rather than accuse me of commenting without reading it? --SeekingOne 11:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

picture moved to talk page[edit]

Hosts, which become the Body of Christ upon consecration, according to the beliefs of some Christian Churches

Please put the pictures here (if you would like to). The Body of Christ is in Spirit and according to the references provided in the article -- no where it looks like or seems like the picture above or any such biological looking pictures or images. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  • My colleague clearly means by "the picture above", based on the markup & history, the accompanying "coins of bread" at right of their contrib.
    I, at least, understand "[put the pictures] here" to refer to this talk page, as opposed to what is sometimes called "here", namely the accompanying article, but YMMV.
    As to "biological looking", i speculate that it refers to a fancied resemblance to something like a bacterial culture, but given the clarifying value of the captions i fail to see any valid objection.
    --Jerzyt 02:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear friend Jerzy,
I have a deep trouble (literally) understanding the caption and strong objection in respect to the interpretation of the caption!
1. the word Hosts is unclear, unbiblical, unscriptural, and also alien to most of the church, church doctrines, or normal christians in general. Members could be one possible word. Believers (Christians) could be another possible alternative word. But I see problems even with those though they are used by Paul and also in the Bible...
2. The word consecration is unclear and I think it fails to define the actual meaning, sense, and motive behind the phrase the Body of Christ.
3. Further, it would be better to expand the picture (concept) with words rather than trying to explain it with some fancy picture(s) which would never be agreed upon as NPOV, by all Christian groups or scholarly people.
Well, Paul explained it without a picture. Well, atleast he tried! Most churches today follow the same pattern.
I don't know, if my arguments are worth even 2 cents but atlesst we can discuss this issue more and anyways, Wikipedia, is not about any individual's POV but a) general consensus among the editors, b) weight of the argument. Thanks. HopeChrist (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Very minor format chg by Jerzyt 20:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • HC, absolutely the first thing i need to say, before even addressing your new points, is that beyond the objection you raised (which obviously i don't fully understand!) and i was trying to address, i need to say these things (and in the first case, should have managed to earlier):
    1. Altho in its totality the caption is NPoV, reading more than a small handful of words in their totality, before reading them in sequence, is a very rare experience and not much worth attempting. So editors need to be responsible for the order in which their ideas are presented, and in this case enough offense is given to many readers (i am among them, just for the record) between the two commas, that the closing disclaimer after the last comma is too little too late.
    2. Browsing a bit in the old revisions raised a tentative impression that the image page may have had its contents replaced by an image that is of the same thing only in a PoV philosophical sense, which strikes me (despite my ignorance of WP image policies and accepted practices) as (transubstantiationist-) PoV vandalism; i'm going to make at least a little effort to investigate that, and will welcome any light your memory sheds on that.
    3. Where in the article such an image and caption would be placed is a crucial issue (and i think at this point that it was probably far too early and prominent).
As to your last preceding 'graph: Let me say that i'm construing your 2¢ remark as somewhere in joke/excessive-modesty territory, but i won't try to flesh out my fancy of making a widow's-mite joke about my own attempts. And hopefully without starting an argument, i'll acknowledge the crucial importance of the points you mention, among what WP is about, but while avoiding any suggestion that that quick sketch is complete.
Please forgive me for stopping, for now, at this point.
--Jerzyt 20:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This discussion has drawn my attention to the fact that the current lead secn fails to fairly represent the current scope of the article. Clearly "This is my body" (unless a falsification of the record) was context for Paul's use of "body of Christ". So either the lead has to be broader, or Body of Christ has to be a Dab between, i dunno, maybe Communion (rite) and Church (theology). The article needs an NPoV lead more than it needs to mention Paul, so i'm writing a minimal one, at least until i have a chance to pick thru the history of the the lead secn. I'm sure we can do better than what i'll gin up, but if you want to improve the lead, your first step is primum non nocere, and your best help with that is probably WFTE.
    --Jerzyt 02:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
My problem with the current lead was (and is) - that it is too short.!. There is no tag on the top of this article stating - the intro to this article is too short; however, I believe, there should be a tag (but its not always important). Now, having said that, I understand that there are NOT many people out there on Wiki those who are sincerely and genuinely interested (with NPOV) in religion based, (or religious concepts, God, Christianity or anything similar) articles but I very much appreciate your contribution and dialogues.
The links to primum non nocere and WFTE were interesting! Anyways, let's try to expand and explain this article in a better possible way. Also, I have a question related with the previous lead - regarding, where and how it was violating the NPOV?
I believe, the sentence which was deleted, ["..Jesus Christ is seen as the "head" of the body, which is the church. The "members" of the body are seen as members of the Church"], is very important and crucial in terms of the essence of the phrase itself. Give it a thought. Thanks a lot. HopeChrist (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I thot of a tag, and a slightly (for me, at least) innovative placement of it. I think we go thru a bit of pretense about these being solely maintenance tags, which we're sorry we haven't found a practical way of making invisible to non-editors. But within limits, i think the truth is that the value, to readers, of the content can be enhanced by avoiding any impression that the topic is as narrow as our current treatment of it might seem to imply. Does the tag meet your immediate concern?
    --Jerzyt 20:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


This section of the article deals only with one small part of the Protestant church, uses a mildly disparaging tone and needs expanding. In my experience, all parts of the Protestant church have a theology of the Body of Christ, how it relates to the Eucharist and the Church. Regrettably I do not have the expertise nor the access to suitable references to make the changes myself. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I also felt that the description of the Protestant belief in the Body of Christ took a very Anti-Catholic POV when it came to the erroneous description of the early church and the incorrect description of the

By contrast, the Roman Catholic Church placed equal emphasis on Scripture and Tradition in order to maintain conformity of its members to its own authority and orthodoxy. By doing this, the Catholic Church was able to define its membership as those who identify with the beliefs held by the Church. The reason for this is because in the first several centuries of the Church, there was a period in which Apostolic Succession and Tradition were important for providing a defense against heresy. Church Apologists and Fathers (such as Irenaeus and Cyprian of Carthage) attempted to tie their doctrinal teachings and interpretations to the original Apostles by means of Apostolic Succession. While this was useful for illustrating the orthodoxy of their teachings, over time it allowed for the Roman Catholic Church to secure more power as the basis for its hierarchical authority over matters concerning the Church, including its membership. Eventually, this would lead to the ascension of the Bishop of Rome to take the first title of "Pope." Later, it would be Gregory I who would see the power vacuum left after the fall of Rome and transform the office of Pope from being the Bishop of Rome into the chief position of political and religious authority in the West for centuries. It would be this authority over doctrine, interpretation, and membership of the Church that Reformers would later oppose in the Protestant Reformation.

This deals with a laughable interpretation of the early church History, which has proven time and time again, false even though modern historians with an Anti-Catholic bias continue to proclaim this form of the history, which was completely made up, as true. Even if we were not talking about the verifiability of the claims proposed above, this still does not conform to the purpose of the section. This type of comment, although false and unverifiable, thus it should not be on wikipedia at all, belongs in early church discussions. (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not have time to work on this now, but I see no reason why you can not just go and fix/trim it yourself. But please do add sources for statements that you make and not just base them on your own views. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
-I just took it out, because it was already out of place. The whole discussion did not have to happen there and it really didn't add anything to the paragraph, it just seemed to add an anti-catholic bias. Thanks! (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Bias can be a matter of opinion, but lack of a WP:RS source is not a mater of opinion. And there were no sources there. History2007 (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, not wanting to leave it there with a flag, I went ahead and got sources - showing what Luther said, Calvin said, etc. Pretty straightforward actually if you look in the Protestant encyclopedia. History2007 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Glorious Body[edit]

There really needs to be complementary information on the theological notion of glorious body, which is a very distinct but very similar notion. [1] ADM (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bride of Christ equals Body of Christ[edit]

Mr. Ames has removed a sentence I put in the first paragraph referencing the "Bride of Christ" as a development of the "Body of Christ". The term "Bride of Christ" is not present in the Pauline Epistles but it is clearly related and implied as the Apostle discusses marital relations and underlines the example of Christ's love for the church. (Eph v, 25). All of the Gospels allude to the symbol of Christ as Bridegroom in various parables. The Last Supper in Matthew records Jesus taking his final cup of wine and referencing the coming heavenly feast. The last book of the Bible has several mentions of the wedding and its feast further underscoring the centrality of the phrase. Catholic theologian, Brant Pitre, recovers the central biblical theme in the 2014 Image imprint titled "Jesus the bridegroom : the greatest love story ever told". In theological terms the Bride of Christ is identical to the Body of Christ. So why not include it in a primary place? Must we put it in the botton of the article as simply a related phrase? Could we not affirm in the lead that the two phrases are synonymous? Church of the Rain (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Body of Christ. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)