Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:03, 24 January 2006

Template:Talkheaderlong Template:FormerFA Template:Mainpage date Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL

Archives

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 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 Misplaced Pages policy to state it as fact if it's disputed. That may be the hardest part of WP:NPOV policy to accept. AnnH 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages articles. Cheers. AnnH 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 Misplaced Pages 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

Sockpuppetry and Consensus

Giovanni33, 64.121.40.153, 38.114.145.148, User:BelindaGong: Please review WP:SOCK. Also, please take a look at WP:CON. Thanks.

Also, the edits are obviously hotly contested and keep getting reverted or substantially changed by several editors, at which point you keep reverting. Please gain a consensus here before simply reverting to the more controversial stuff. Thanks...KHM03 13:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the policies. Obviously I have generated some agreement with others who support my version. Its rather insulting to insinuate that this must be due me being one and the same with the others. I have only one account. I am not aware how to spoof IP addresses. I have a static IP address.

Yes, the edits your making are also hotly contested and keep getting revereted or substancially changed by several editors, at which point you keep reverting, as well. Please follow your own advice and gain a consensus here before you keep reverting. Note above that I have responded to your points (and that of anyone else), addressing every each point. Im waiting for your response, yet you gave none and only kept reverting. Please respond to the points before simply making the same reverts back on the page. As Belinda has pointed out this was infact removing other well established material that was agreed on here long ago. I'm awaiting your answer above so you can make your case why this material should be suppressed. So far you have not made the case. 64.121.40.153 13:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there is a clear POV being pushed here by those of the Christian faith. This is clear by the double standard: the rules apply to only some but not others. For example the need to reach consensus. Above Giovann and others have asked questions to try to reach consensus about what the objections are, and to have that justified. No response. Yet, the works is still removed. And, other work is removed without any justification. Why is the History chart now continually removed just to restore to KHM03's version? He never made that case. He never made the case why his version which many dispute on here (everyone who is not pushing a clear Christian POV) is the one that is being reverted to. If this article and site is really about defending a Church POV then at least say so. What I can't stand is the hypocracy and dishonesty. BelindaGong 13:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Belinda

Administrators: I'm not sure about "sockpuppet etiquette", so I really don't feel comfortable responding too much here. WP:Arb? I defer to the sysops who participate in this article. KHM03 13:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please verify that there is no sockepuppety going on, however that is done. Im sure you have a way to verity what are real distinct IP address and that which someone manually changes to appear to be another person. I swear that I would not do that, although given appearances I forgive KHM03's suspitions, although I might wonder about him and STR. hehe 64.121.40.153 14:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

Giovanni33 has seemed to have triggered an interesting state of Hysteria. I for one found his contribution to the historical section both of great interest and relevance. Please keep up the good work.

Stepping outside the "Misplaced Pages NPOV / POV game play" for moment

The Misplaced Pages exercise is ONLY of real value, if it develops without censorship by self-interested minorities. If you're at all interested why, see "The Wisdom of Crowds - James Surowiecki".

Hence - in the context of the above, there should be no issue with all known information concerning the roots of Christianity being available to all who are interested, including the possible derivation of Christianity from an number of preceeding cults with very similar attributes.

Rather than attempting to re-write or suppress certain history information, perhaps individuals should examine their own agendas and ultimately the strenght of their own faiths.

No - I'm not a sock puppet :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShriek (talk • contribs) 14:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence of suppression of information, simply adherence to mainstream academic views on Christianity. There isn't enough room on the web to contain every radical theory or minority perspective...that has nothing to do with the veracity of the views, and everything to do with support in academia. Giovanni33 (& socks, I suppose) has presented a view which has recieved little support from the experts in the field of Christian history. We need to treat these views properly...mention them and their position within academia, and move on. KHM03 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KHM03, and I request that people would stop using accusations of hysteria, censorship, and POV-pushing when editors who are open about their Christian faith try to ensure that anything added to the article would be backed up with reliable sources. We all have POVs here. It's not as if criticizing Christian churches = neutrality and defending them = bias. If something critical of Christianity belongs to mainstream academic scholarship, then of course it can go into the article, though even then, it should be reported as something that writers and professors X, Y, and Z assert, rather than something that is a fact. If something critical of Christianity comes from a non-mainstream academic source, then it can be reported in the (again, in the for of Professor X says) if there's room for it, and if it's sufficiently relevant. In either case, please make your case on the talk page, and wait for consensus. And please don't revert to a version that says the page is semi-protected when it's not. Giovanni33 could you please log on when posting here. This seems to show that you are 64.121.40.153. It gets confusing when you edit from two names, and is perhaps a bit unfair of people who want to keep track of your arguments. BelindaGong, I presume that you were 38.114.145.148, and that you have now registered. In that case, welcome. Welcome also to TheShriek. Could I just say, please sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this by typing four tildes like this ~~~~ at the end; they will automatically expand into your name and the date. Thanks. AnnH 15:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is me and I'll remember to log on. Thanks. Giovanni33 16:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words of support, anon. user. I will keep up the good work and continue to seek consensus. I expect the clash in points of view, the discussions, and use of evidence by contending parties to show what the authorities really do say about these many questions, to prouduce in the end a NPOV and informative article. But it only works if we are all following the rules. Its kind of hard when the objections are not made known, when they keep chaning, and when claims are not being supported (or only being supported one way).

KH03, back the the arguments. You again say proclaim that the views I present are radical theories and minority perspective. If they are they can be said to be such and still included. But, you have no even established that yet. I invite you to please present evidence for these claims, again. Previous request have been met with silence.

As I stated previously, you have not shown what the consensus views are, or what makes for (in your mind) a view that is to be acccepted as valid, vs. scholars who you say are not because they are "radical" or "obscure." I'd like to know your criteria for determining what is mainstream (outside of their credencials and professional activities since that doesnt seem to be enough). Has there been a vote among the experts on these questions? Do the majority refute the "radical theories?" Please do share your knowlege about these matters by backing up your claims. Surely you are not imune to his burden? Or are we supposed to accept your word on faith alone? Or are you the self appointed expert? I know that to discount my scholars as "obscure" (without establishing that as a fact or giving your criteria for such branding), it does not logicallly that what they say is inaccurate (I think you no longer make this argument). But to suppress them as not acceptable for inclusion fails when you fail to cite any scholars with specific refutations of my contributions as one would expect if your claims were correct. 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, not valid, or not worhty of inclusion. Such would be illogical esp. in light of the MANY legitimate scholars I have cited to support the information I have added.

And, please be specific when you cite your authorities which clealry show a specific refutation to specific claims that I make in this "radical" view? I dont accpet your premise and believe that it’s only radical from the perspective of Church orthodoxy--that is your own POV. Since this is not a religious site, but NPOV, I'd say it's rather important to get out of the Church sanctioned box.

And, keep in mind you claiming a view is mainstream doesnt make it so. Please also provide evidence for that important claim if you are going to use it to supporess a view based on its claimed minoirty status. Show me where the views of your scholars are accepted, whereas the ones I cite are not. And, again, be specific and cite what your "authorities" say that constitues a specific refutation to some or all of the specific claims that I've made. If what you are saying is true, and these theoris are in the minority, and considered radical, then surely is must be very easy for you to show that with specific refutions from the "mainstream" no? I hope that the mainstream is really that and not just a code word for mainstream within the confines of Christians themsleves. In my other debates with you in the Early Christianity board, all you produced were other Christians, some of which were not even in academia , and most of which were not that scholarly in nature. So if you are going to give those same references here I hope you can address what makes them more acceptable than the scholars I have cited to the "mainstream" however you define that. The object here is to seek a truely NPOV, not to copy the POV of institutions that are biased.

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....they prefer simply to ignore the whole thing as if it did not exist."

Giovanni33 15:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Giovanni

Its interesting to note that a reference to John Marco Allegro (a brilliant Semitic Languages scholar) and his work on the Essenes survived less than a day. Obviously his Oxford University doctorate wasn't of sufficient calibre to count him as a scholar in this community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShriek (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Good will version and response

Str, please stop reverting to what may be a more contentious version (note 5 editors here agree with Giovanni's version at least), and which also does revert many improvements/contributions by many editors that are included in this latest version. Please make your case here on the talk page and seek consensus, like everyone else. Thanks. BelindaGong 17:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Belinda. You say that five editors at least agree with Giovanni's version. 38.114.145.148 signed as Belinda here, and then you appeared with the same arguments. Are you the same editor or not? There's absolutely nothing wrong with editing as an anon and then registering an account, but we need to know because of rules limiting the number of reversions allowed, even when split between two accounts. Giovanni33 has clarified that he is User:64.121.40.153. User:TheShriek seems to have registered today. There is a slight contradiction at Misplaced Pages. On the one hand, we welcome new users; most of us do that very willingly. On the other hand, because of the ease of registering an account just to get round the revert limit or to vote on an issue to support a friend (I've blocked seventeen sockpuppets in the last few days), the sockpuppet policy says that you are not a fully-established Wikipedian until you have a hundred edits. (At least it did say that; I haven't checked the page recently.) So, if it doesn't sound too paradoxical, welcome, and for the record I don't think you're a sockpuppet (though I do ask you either to clarify if you are 38.114.145.148 or else not to use that address any more now that you have an account), but I would suggest that all the new users would be a little less eager to revert and to throw round words like censorship and POV-pushing. It really doesn't take long to become established. But to start your "career" on Misplaced Pages by repeatedly reverting isn't the best idea. AnnH 20:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on, Belinda and others, this is getting ridiculous. I revert to the (IMHO) not contentious version but included the material added by Giovanni for now. I still don't agree with it and the debate is not over, but this is an act of good will. But you are bent on reverting to a version with severe structural deficencies.

Actually, I think both version had structural deficiencies. One point I think people were making with the reverts what that is was reverting important agreed upon things, such as the history chart itself. When was that a point of contention? I have just added it, accepting your good will version. I have also made and will make more edits on this new goodwill version to address the defects and objections you raise here and below. My whole stuggle is to get people to state the issues and objections so that they can be fixed, instead of simply reverting and being silent specifics (or address points/counter points in an argument over claims made). Thanks for the goodwill version which I think will be more productive for all points of view. Giovanni33 18:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Gio

You say I should "not revert the MANY improvments that have been made by many editors", but what are actually the differences between my "good will" version and yours.

• You still include the horrendous passage: "While initially Christianity grew out of Judaism, heavily relying on the Koine Greek Alexandrine text of the Hebrew Bible commonly refered to in the west as the Septuagint"

I accept the goodwill version is being better language. Although, I dont think this section is horrendous. hehe

• You basically delete the "In the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity and Theodosius I established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire." by burying it under a rabble of "mytery" speculation.

No, that section was never deleted, nor was it burying under a rable of mystery speculation. Here is the section:

In the 1st century CE there were at least three well known and 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 each other. A single basic church hierarchy did not establish itself until as late as the 4th century with its ascendancy as the state enforced religion under Constantine the Great who established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I. The state 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 religions." The church used the power of the state 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.

I think it flows well together, contrasting the three well know distinct divisions, all claiming to be the one true version, and resulted with the formation of one that with state power that suppressed the other two.

• You turn "doctrinal disputes, especially regarding Christology, intensified, leading to internal strife and clearer dogmatic definitions through ecumenical councils." into "further refinenment in doctrinal disputes continued, leading to the ecumenical councils" - both wordings are debatable but why is your version so outrageously better than mine that it needs reversion. The same goes for the next change:
• "Other peoples adopted Christianity, such as Armenia or Ethiopia, while among other peoples ancient Christian minority communities developed" into "Other peoples adopted Christianity, such as Armenia or Ethiopia, while among other peoples independent Christian groups developed"

I agree both are minor and subtle changes. I think my changes are more acurate as they were indepenent, which is important to state given the enforced conformity elsewhere.

• You add "Protestantism fragmented into more than a dozen families of denominations, and thousands of individual faith groups -- over 1,000 in North America alone." The gist of this has already been included further above, the rest is circumstantial.

That is an important ramification of the split from the Catholic Church and should be stated.

• You de-link Biblical criticism.
• In the final line of that paragraph you constantly kick out the "Charismatic movement".

These are non intentional as im sure the reversions back to KH03, by himself, yourself, and Ann, did not mean to kick out the history chart, each time. But, there are other changes, too, in the persectution section, which I included as a compromise to issues raised by Sophia. These were being reverted back to an original state, as well. I'll restore changes shortly.

Now, I think you don't even care about these changes that have nothing to do with the issue of contention here. I think you simply want to revert back to your version. We have seen this before - it took me some energy to even reinclude "Islam" into your version.

Nope, not true. I cared about all the changes. That is the problem of reverting. The easiest way for me (and I guess others) to restore it all at once is to revert it back to the most updated version. I dont see why it took some energy to reinclude Islam into my version. Infact, I included it once I realized it was not there. When you raised the point, I had no objections to including it.

I for my part cannot see how your version contains "MANY improvments that have been made by many editors" and no justification for your revert.

I hope you can see now that it did contain many things, some of which were not even in contention, and thus her justification was correctly stated and believed.

The only thing I can see is the book list which I will re-include. I will however take out Lüdemann, as he is no authority on anything, and Hislop, as he has been discussed and dismissed here before. Str1977 17:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That is fine with me.

The preceding post was written simultaneously to Belinda's post above. Here's my reply to this:

"Str, please stop reverting to what may be a more contentious version (note 5 editors here agree with Giovanni's version at least)"

Five editors agree, some of which are suspected of being sock-puppets. I don't say that they are but this head counting proves nothing and certainly doesn't invalidate accuracy and NPOV.

I agree, but it does make the point that there is contention for both versions. Its not so one sided.

"...and which also does revert many improvements/contributions by many editors that are included in this latest version."

As pointed out above, I don't see any improvements. At best there are neutral changes.

As I showed there were many improvments, in some cases major ones which were being knocked out, i.e the history charge and on Persecution section, the books, etc.

"Please make your case here on the talk page and seek consensus, like everyone else."

May I remind editors of the fact that Giovanni did not seek or get consensus for his version. He simply posted it, bloating up the history section with a focus on one issue.

Now, this is not true. I have been working tirelessly to get a consensus for my version. True, I posted it with a POV for others to assist in the edits per the consensus but I have been working here to iron out all points of objection, or argue for them, in the aim of reaching consensus.

Let me do some maths for you:

• The history section in its current state (i.e. my good will version) has exactly 1043 words.
• Without the contentious passages (i.e. in its former state) it has 457 words.
• Giovanni's additions number exactly 586 words (leaving aside the Koine passage).

No dispute here. Your good-will version is indeed a productive step in the right direction and I applaude you for it, and the section was entirely missing any touching of the origins from the standpoint of ideas. I note this is often a neglected topic but one which I feel is important.

That is not a mere addition to a brief historical overview, this is bloating of a section and pushing of a certain pet issue.

I think it is very brief and in reality adds a new section: origin of ideas and practices, on top of the history, which I also contributed to. Belinda suggested earlier that maybe it should be divided into a subsection. I'm open to that.

To say nothing about accuracy and POV language.

Str1977 17:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do say something as that is what I've been trying to get out of critics, so I can undersand the objections, and than remedy per NPOV and accuracy. I cant do it alone. We all need to coopearte and get our hands dirty. hehe

I did say something further down. Str1977 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks again for the communication and goodwill version. I'll keep working on it until we have something that passes all of our scrutiny of each other. Giovanni33 19:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Gio

Analysis of Giovanni's addition

1st paragraph:

"Christian doctrines also emerged, in part, out of the various mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East in antiquity."

This is worse than before, having been turned from "may have emerged" to "emerged" - this portrays a POV as fact. A NPOV version is already included.

Agreed. This should be fixed. I think I did fix it already in a later version. This must be from an earlier version your quoting.

"Also, early Christian fathers such as Origen helped to create a synthesis between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, and Christianity."

No objection, but already included above.

"Other scholars ..."

Are you placing Paglia next to Origen?

I kept the good will version which replaces the above,and I moved the Paglia quote and placed it after Larson, where it fits better.

"... such as Humanities Professor Camille Paglia assert that Christianity was itself a development of the Dionysian mystery religion."

This is a NPOV statement, though this overview is not the place to go into details. Also consider KHM's dispute of her credentials. Humanities is a very wide field. Romanists, for instance, can comment on language and literature, but not on history (apart from their respective studies) or theology.

I may be willing to concede to this point.

"Although many scholars believe that the incorporation and influences of several pre-Christian ideas, especially from Gnosticism and from various amalgamations of Jewish ideas in combination with Stoicism, Orpheism and Dionyseanism Gnosticism explains the many similarities eventually comprising the orthodoxy of the Church,"

So, many scholars believe this. This is definetely overstated.

"... this remains disputed by reglious scholars."

The old trick: paint the opposition as "religious", claim that their opposition has nothing to do with scholarship - are the "many scholars" above all Atheists?

Its not a trick, its points to the fact that religious bias helps to inform the reasons the disputes (although I have not seen anyone here actually cite disputes), just as secular humanist scholars, including Athieists would include and emphasis this, since it points to their bias, as well. It doesnt follow that it therefore has nothing to dowith scholarship. Scholarship is biased--there is no escaping it. Good scholarship is honest about this and includes footnotes of the other side, and when argues a point uses the best arguments of their opponents, etc. But, in questions of emphasis, bias is easily seen. However, I removed it by simply stating, "this remains disputed." I take this on faith since no one here has yet to prove that its disputed. Unless they to, I may change it.

2nd paragraph:

"It's important to note that in its early years, there was not one Christianity but many, emerging along side a vareity of mystery cults"

Apart from being a condescending advice to the reader, it is also at best POV and misleading, especially since the mystery cults are then mentioned separately.

I don't thin its POV or misleading but I do see redundancy and over emphasis on the ideas.

I guess since the this area of influence has been so neglected I want to bend it the other way and stress the facts of the diversity of thought that existed. I concede this is not necessarily correct and would not remove the redundancy.

"many of whose members converted into Christitan teachers and leaders themselves and thus were an influence on the Christian developing ideas and practices."

Those converting from MCs to Christianity may very well have influenced it (but how and in what respect?), but certainly couldn't start off something they joined (or radically transform it) and they certainly wouldn't change the substance of something they joined. If so, why did they change in the first place?

Actually, I've already spoken on this point, but stating here how and in what respect would be beyond the scope of this section/article which is being kept breif. I agree that the article it links to should address these questions.

"Most scholarship believes these to included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus,"

As I stated above, the Essenes are not mystery cult at all, it is doubtful for the Therapeutes, the Gnostics are what we are talking about, the Nasseni I don't know. Dionysus should worded better.

Perhaps but its debatable as they certainly shared many things with the mystery cults. Their "Sons of Light," 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.

"... and there is much speculation regarding Mithraism may also have been partly 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."

That assumes that there was something like a "savior cult of Osiris" at the time and that both Mithraism and Christianity spring from it. Mithraism has Persian origins and a origin in Egypt is dubious. And Christianity certainly didn't spring from that cult. Granted, Larson says so, but how much of an authority is he on that matter?

Larson never says Christianity springs from that cult, he only says it both derived fromteh same sources, originally from the savior cult of Osiris. Larson's work, from what I've read, is well respected and scholarly.

"Many followers of developing Gnosticism for example (Valentinius being one of the most well-known) were also Christians, and taught a synthesis of the two belief systems."

Granted, but that is Gnosticism and not orthodox Christianity.

Yes, and that is the point. There was on one orthodoxy (until later)---and the Gnostics merged with Christians, and were both. Similarly with other teachers and members of the early christianity. This helps to explain the influences on each other.

• 3rd paragraph:

"In the 1st century there were at least three well known and 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 each other."

This is a misrepresentation of the situation, conflating various periods in time: there were Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians in the first century. The JCs (a term that was attacked by another editor only last week) were hit by the Jewish wars and persecution - parts perished (the church of Jerusalem between 132 and 135), parts survived and stayed with the church, parts founded "heresies". It is only these heresies (and certainly James was not their leader) that separetely existed during times that Gnosticism was really prominent. Gnosticism is also mentioned already in "my" first paragraph. And what is "at least" supposed to insinuate?

What you say factually true from my own understanding, however thhis doesnt contradict my section. You admit all this was in the 1st century, which is all I state. I don't think I'm misrepresenting only stating briefly. These greater details within the 1st century I leave out to be included in the article itself that deals with early history.

"A single basic church hierarchy did not establish itself until as late as the 4th century with its ascendancy as the state enforced religion under Constantine the Great who established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I."

What is a "single basic church hierarchy"? There was church hierarchy in the 1st century, at least in some places. Constantine didn't change that. Christianity was not the state enforced religion" under him - it wasn't even under Theodosius. And how is the phrase "Constantine the Great who established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I." syntactically and logically possible.

Good catch of something in need of correction re Constantine and Theodosius. I think more needs to be clarified regarding the church hierarchy, what did exist, and when. Certainly it did change after it became the state religion.

"The state 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 religions."

Partly true, but this is what's already subsumed under Theodosius. What is wrong is that "imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older religions" - pagan temples were closed and private sacrifices forbidden. But there was no iquisiting pagan sympathies - some senators were quite openly pagan.

Yes, this doesn't change the decree or what it states, or its purpose, or that fact that it really did carry this out in practice. There is no contradiction here.

"The church used the power of the state to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians."

That's a repitition of what you said before, but it is hardly worded NPOV. There was no organised extermination of Pagans or Gnostics. And the Church did not generally approve of violence, in fact in the case of Priscillian very high-ranking bishops protested his execution.

I disagree here. There was organized extermination of Pagans and Gnostics. That why only Pauline Christianity had survived (in the Mediterranean area), and while there were some individuals in the church who did not approve, I dont think it can be said that "the church di dnot generally approve of violence." They sure managed to executed a lot of people for "not generally approving of violence."

"Church authority had became concentrated in the five bishops or patriarchs located in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome."

The pentarchy developed in the 5th century (451 most notably) and was sanctioned into law in the 6th century. BTW, the sequence of sees is completely wrong. It should be Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalm, in descending precedence.

In theory they were all supposed to be equal, although in practice Rome was given preference.

"The losing groups, exiled and persecuted, with their property taken, their sacred literature banned and destroyed, were condemned as heretics."

This is inappropriate (apart from the repitition) as it reduces theological conflicts to a power struggle with "winners" and "losers". And Vae Victores!

Why is that inappriate? There was a power struggle that took the form of theological conflicts and there were clear winners and losers.

"A sample of that scripture was preserved in a cave at Nag Hammadi. 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."

You are right about Nag Hammadi, but it doesn't "shroud" Christianity's early history "in mystery" but rather illustrates and illuminates what we knew before. It doesn't touch upon the "origins of Christian doctrine" at all, since it only gives as texts of a variation of groups existing at some time. But they don't say where they got their "gnosis" from.

This alone does not shroud it in mystery. What does it the complexity of the veritable potpourri of religious ideas in which Christianity formed. I included it to show they existed, despite the best effort of the church to wipe out their existence. Actually, in a later version, I removed this as it didnt quite fit and could lead to this confusion.

• 4th paragraph:

Preface: The following is basically a diatribe wallowing in anti-Christian bigotry of the worst sort. If this all were true no one of us would be sitting her, contributing to a non-existant Misplaced Pages. Hence I will remove it entirely. But let's go into details.

"The resulting orthodoxy emphasised blind faith, which "renders the impossible possible "(Mark ix. 23, 24),"

Who is advocating a blind faith then or now. Certainly not the Church Fathers or the Scholastiscs of the Middle Ages. There have always been those that have emphasized the potential of human reason and those that have emphasized its limitations, according to the situation. The rendering here is a carricature.

This overlooks the fact of what the main emphasis was as a religious doctrine which distiguished itself from competing religions, including the other Christian trends. I dont lose sight of the forest for the trees here. I'll provide more support for this argument later after get some sleep.

"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")"

That is patent nonsense. It was the Church and Christianity that saved as much of ancient learning and culture over the following troublesome years. "shown" here is a euphemism for "claimed". As for White see this link.

Beg to differ. I'll argue this point later.

"a craving for the miraculous and supernatural created ever new superstitions, under the form of relic-worship from old pagan forms of belief."

Above, Christians exterminated paganism root and branch and now they are pagans themselves. The truth is that Christianity did destroy superstitions one by one. Of course, not everywhere and not immediately, but slowly and surely.

No, they are not pagans themselves. However, they did incorporate various pagan ideas and practices, albeit in a vulgarized and literalised fashion, redressing it at their own. Yes, Christinity destroyed the other competing superstitions to boster its own dogmatic and authoritarian one.

"As American religious scholar Kaufmann Kohler writes, "in the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed.""

More patent nonsense. What supposedly was exterminated was in fact rescued over to the Middle Ages. "Free thinking" was either not surpressed or is a euphemism for something else. True, the Academy was closed down, but Justinian also founded the "university" of Constantinople.

hehe I disagree, but I'll have to debate this later when I can actually still type. Been awake for too long..

Str1977 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni33 21:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Gio's version: "Christian doctrines may also have emerged, in part, out of the various mystery teachings that existed in Greece and the Middle East in antiquity. Early Christian fathers such as Origen helped to create a synthesis between Greek philosophy, especially Plato, and Christianity. Although many scholars believe that the incorporation and influences of several pre-Christian ideas, especially from Gnosticism and from various amalgamations of Jewish ideas in combination with Stoicism, Orpheism and Dionyseanism Gnosticism explains the many similarities eventually comprising the orthodoxy of the Church, this remains disputed."

KHM03's response: Most of that is disputed. The mystery religions are mentioned in the previous paragraph as a possible influence; no need to overstate that. I deleted most of that paragraph, keeping the sentence beginning, "Early Christian fathers...", which, while it could be worded more effectively, is generally undisputed. KHM03 19:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As stated twice already, if you say most of it is disputed, then please support that claim with those that dipute it. I have yet to see your oft repeated claim given any referenced support. Without doing so, I'll dispute your claim as not validated and therefore the deletions you base it on. Giovanni33 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio's version: "It's important to note that in its early years, there was not one Christianity but many, emerging along side the vareity of aformentioned belief systems, many of whose members converted into Christitan teachers and may have helped to influence the development of Christian ideas and practices. Most scholarship believes these may included the Nasseni, Essenes,Therapeutae, Gnostics, Dionysus, and there is much speculation that Mithraism may also have been partly 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. Other scholars such as Humanities Professor Camille Paglia assert that Christianity was itself a development of the Dionysian mystery religion. It is known that many followers of developing Gnosticism for example (Valentinius being one of the most well-known) were also Christians, and probably taught a synthesis of the two belief systems."

KHM03's response: That's all disputed and most of it conjectural, not "hard history". I could live with the first sentence, modified of course. Larson and Paglia are not authorities on Christian history, so there's no need to mention them. KHM03 19:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As stated before, if you say most of it is disputed, then please support that claim with those that dipute it. I have yet to see your oft repeated claim given any referenced support. Without doing so, I'll dispute your claim as not validated and therefore the deletions you base it on. Giovanni33 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio's version: "In the 1st century there were at least three well known and 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 each other. A single basic church hierarchy did not establish itself until as late as the 4th century with its ascendancy as the state enforced religion under Constantine the Great who established it as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius I. The state 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 religions." The church used the power of the state 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. The losing groups, 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. 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."

KHM03's response: I reworded the first sentence (and added links) to make it less POV: "In the first century there may have been at least three divisions within the Christian movement: the Jewish Christians (believed to have been 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)." I removed the sentence beginning "Each believed..." altogether, as I couldn't see its purpose. I changed the third sentence to include the idea (prominent in scholarship) that there is at least the beginnings of a hieracrchy revealed in the Pastorals, but kept the bit about structures being formalized by the time of Constantine: "While a church hierarchy seems to have been in development at least by the time of the writing of the Pastoral Epistles, structures were certainly formalized by the time of Constantine the Great and Theodosius I, who established Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire." The rest of the paragraph didn't seem to have much of a purpose in this very brief overview, and seemed pretty conjectural (why do we need to mention Nag Hammadi at this point? we don't), so I removed it. KHM03 19:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Only the first sentence is still misleading - the Paulines, if at all, were only separate during Paul's lifetime. To call "mainstream" Christianity Pauline is overstating his importance. Even Baur in the 19th century assumed that much, giving birth to the idea of a "Early Catholicism" synthesis. And the Jewish Christians separated from the Church after 135 were small sects. I'd opt for merging it with the "Christianity also had to deal with internal heresies, especially Gnosticism and various mystery cults, which may also have been an influence" sentence. Str1977 20:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That could work; do that. KHM03 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Though, for the record, I'm not sure we could overstate Paul's importance (granted, we Protestants have a pretty "high view" of the man!). KHM03 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

No doubt he is a most important figure. But you can overstate his importance. D. Martin Luther IMHO did that when he declared Paul's letters to be the the central texts of the NT - they are very important and I love the letter to the Romans, but there were twelve other apostles, some of which also wrote in the NT, not to forget a man called Jesus. And Paul himself denounced clinging to him in 1 Corintians.

But what is relevant to our issue here: even if theories about a conflict between Petrine and Pauline Christianity ending in a "Early Catholic synthesis" were true, than we'd still have that synthesis in the 2nd and 3rd century. Str1977 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

If not before. Heck, Str1977, you're not sounding very Protestant.  ;) KHM03 20:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio's version: "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. As American religious scholar Kaufmann Kohler writes, "in the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed."

KHM03's response: The entire paragraph is conjectural and POV. Many of antiquity's greatest minds were Christian who strongly supported learning, and that has continued throughout history (one can hardly question the intellect or support for education of Augustine, Aquinas, Wesley, and many others). In short, the paragraph just seemed to me to deny reality, and certainly had no place in a very brief overview of Christian history in an NPOV encyclopedia. And, additionally, Draper, White, and Kohler are not historians of Christianity (though they may be tops in their fields); surely we can quote more authoritative sources. KHM03 19:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree here but will have to debate the points later.

Overall, I've tried to incorporate the best of the material, what wasn't conjectural or POV, and think there's now a more balanced look in the section, respectful of the minority views Gio has presented while also adhering to the dominant view among scholars. Now, I'm off to glory in the exultant light of the angels. KHM03 19:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, Ill have to take a look at it later and review changes. I'll respect everyone contributions, and thoughts, ofcourse.

Giovanni33 21:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I made a small tweak. The hierarchy is clearly visible in the 3rd century with such strong bishops as Cyprian of Carthage, Dionysius of Alexandria, Xystus of Rome etc. I also delinked it from Constantine and Theodosius as they didn't have anything to do with a formalisation of church hierarchy. Str1977 20:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a comment to make about the use of the word "as" in Giovanni's "blind faith" passage. As American religious scholar Kaufmann Kohler writes, "in the name of the Christian faith reason and research were condemned, Greek philosophy and literature were exterminated, and free thinking was suppressed." To respect NPOV, we report what people say (if it's sufficiently relevant), but we don't try to corroborate it. If you look at these three examples:

• It was a nice day
• John said it was a nice day
• As John said, it was a nice day

the first example actually asserts that it was a nice day. The second example is completely neutral about whether or not it really was a nice day; it simply reports what John said, without agreeing or disagreeing. However, the third example, while reporting what John said, also reports that he was right. So a wording that tries to support Kohler (regardless of his level of authority on the history of Christianity, which seems questionable anyway) does not meet the requirements of NPOV. AnnH 22:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"the major Christian doctrines also emerged, in part, out of the various mystery teachings" Gio: 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." Str: 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 ..."

It has not been shown yet that its not consensus. Isnt it strange that I've asked for that at least 4 times and no one has been able to deliever? In anycase I'm changing it to reflect your proposed language, for now, since as it stands now its completely unclear. Infact, what is left while is short but very choppy and not clear. 64.121.40.153 04:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gio, your claim that Christian doctrines emerged out of mystery religions is not fact. Please stop claiming it as such.

As stated (either here or at Early Christianity), the fact that mainstream historians have not disputed these claims to your satisfaction stems primarily from the fact that they don't take these ideas seriously. I've offered several names & resources of mainstream figures (not fringe folks or non-historians, such as Paglia), but you have denied the veracity and authority of mainstream academia. That's fine. But for this article, as for all of Misplaced Pages, we need to rely on that authority. Sure, we can mention these more radical fringe theories, but they are minority positions and we need to treat them as such. Again, your problem is with the academy, not with other editors who want to support that persepctive. I suggest you look at Gonzales' Concise History of Christian Doctrine, Oden's Systematic theology trilogy (which covers doctrinal history in detail), or any number of works by Alister McGrath. These well known and highly respected scholars may help you understand the mainstream academy a little better.

Also, I think you misunderstand what we mean by "consensus"; this is not your fault, as I'm not sure we've explained it well enough. Please review WP:CON when you can. There is a consensus in the academy (which we're trying to represent in spite of your problems with that consensus), but when we mention "consensus" here or in edit summaries, we're talking about consensus among the editors here. So far, several fine , long-standing editors of Misplaced Pages have reverted, removed, or radically altered your changes. We have urged you to reach a conssnsus here, among the editors of the article, before making such hotly disputed and acdemically questionable changes. You've refused. This is why your proposals keep getting reverted or deleted. Now, I see that you have restored false content again. It will undoubtedly be removed again, by me or by another editor. It's incorrect and POV...not according to KHM03, Str1977, or Musical Linguist, but according to mainstream scholars of Christian history. Please...before making these changes which can never remain (until the academy radically changes its mind!), try and convince us here.

I did my best to incorporate your perspective in my edits yesterday...to no avail. You've pretty much just restored the POV content. Please stop doing this, or the article will remain disputed for the forseeable future and readers of Misplaced Pages will suffer. Thanks...KHM03 11:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protect.

• Since this is starting to go a bit too far with bais, I think this article should be promptly semi-protected, gutted of most of it's content and re-written by more trustworthy users. Pure inuyasha 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)