
#REDIRECT Christianity
Christianity is the world's largest religion. It is based on the life and teachings of Jesus as described in the New Testament of the Bible. ==Beliefs == The central and some would argue the most contested concept is " The Greatest Command " or the "New Command" of Jesus (see Christian Love). Most Christians ( not all see Jonadabs ) believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah of the Jews as prophet in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible). This is reflected in their use of the term "Christ" to describe Jesus, which is derived from the Greek language translation for "Messiah". The word ''Christian'' means "belonging to Christ" or "of Christ". Although Christianity is a monotheism religion,Christians believe in a God that exists as three divine persons (technically Greek ''hypostasis''), called the Trinity. Christianity encompasses numerous religious traditions that widely vary by culture, as well as thousands of diverse beliefs and sects. Christianity is generally grouped into three main branches, which split from one another in disputes over doctrine: #Roman Catholicism (the largest single denomination, with over one billion adherents), #Orthodox Christianity (including Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy), and #Protestantism (numerous denominations & schools of thought, including Anglicanism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Methodism). When combined, Christianity is the world's largest single religion, with an estimated 2.0 billion followers or about 33% of the world's population. The vast majority of Christian religions (generally including Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and most forms of Protestantism, but not Restorationism) derive their beliefs from the conclusions reached by the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., known as the Nicene Creed. This describes the beliefs that God (as a Trinity of distinct persons with one substance) became human on earth, born as Jesus pursuant to the Old Testament scriptures, was crucified by humanity, died and was buried, only to be resurrected on the third day to then rise to Heaven and "sitteth at the right hand of" (become one with) God. Christians generally believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to achieve salvation and to enter into heaven, and that salvation is a gift given by the grace of God. ==History== ===Origins=== Christianity originated in the first century. According to Acts of the Apostles 11:19 and 11:26 in the New Testament, Jesus' followers were first called Christians by non-Christians in the city of Antioch, where they had fled and settled after early persecutions in Judea. After Jesus' death, early Christian doctrine was taught by Peter, Paul of Tarsus, and the other apostles. According to the New Testament Jesus was a descendant of Judah who declared himself to be the long awaited Messiah (Gospel of John 8:23–24, 14:11), but was rejected as an apostate by the people generally considered to be the Jewish authorities (Gospel of Matthew 26:63–64). He was condemned for blasphemy and executed by the Roman Empire around the year 30. The formal charge cited in his execution was leading a rebellion (Gospel of Luke 23:1–5): he was called the "King of the Jews" by Pontius Pilate (John 19:19–22; see Luke 16:8) on the INRI or statement of the charge hung over the condemned on the cross. The Gospels indicate that the Roman charge was actually an attempt to appease the Jewish authorities, although some scholars argue that it was an ordinary Roman trial of a rebel. According to Christians, the Old Testament predicted the death and humiliation of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. Examples include the book of Isaiah that alludes to the slapping (Matt. 26:67–68; Isa. 50:6, 52:14–15; Gospel of Mark 14:65; Luke 23:63–64), whipping (Isa. 53:5; John 19:1; Matt. 27:26) and general humiliation that is centred on the given references. Jesus' apostles were the main witnesses of his life, teaching and resurrection from the dead, although some of the early traditions of the church name numerous disciples (as many as Seventy Apostles, including James the Just, Mark, Luke, Mary Magdalene, etc) who also followed Jesus in his travels and witnessed his miracles and teachings. After his crucifixion, his apostles and other followers claimed that Jesus rose from the dead, and set out to preach the new message. The original apostles may have written some portions of the New Testament's Gospels and Epistles; however, the four gospels are not considered to have been written eponymously by their respective namesakes. Many of the New Testament's twenty-seven books were written by Paul of Tarsus. Twelve Epistles name him as writer, and some traditions also credit him as the writer of the book of Epistle to the Hebrews. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are stated as having been written by Luke, whom many believe to have been under Paul's direct influence. Acts cites Paul as a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), a leading figure amongst the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 5:34–40) and a noteworthy authority in his own right (Acts 28:16–22) considering that the Jews of Rome sought his opinion on Christianity. Paul was the principal missionary of the Christian message to the Gentile world. ===Early Church=== [[Image:Ichthus.png|thumb|The story goes that an early Christian, upon meeting another person, might draw an arc in the earth, and if the other person shared the faith, he would draw another arc completing this ichthys, a symbol of Christianity.]] Christianity spread rapidly over the first three centuries aided by the relative internal peace and good roads of the Roman Empire: * via Egypt into North Africa, Sudan and Ethiopia * via Mesopotamia to Persian Empire, Inner Asia and India * via Greece and Rome to Europe There were two main communities of Christians, the Jewish Christians and the Hellenism Christians. Jewish Christians were those Jews and Gentile converts who observed the Law of Moses (including circumcision, dietary restrictions and the concept of purity, sabbath, quartodecimanism) pejoratively called judaize. Hellenistic Christians were those who were more influenced by the Greek-speaking world and believed that the central message of Christianity could be re-presented in ways more appropriate for Gentiles. Both these groups contributed to the New Testament and both contained within them a wide spectrum of beliefs (see J. Dunn 1977 ''Unity and Diversity in the New Testament''). One of the first great writers of Christianity, Tertullian, sums this up in a rhetorical address to a Roman governor with the fact that, as for the Christians of Carthage that just yesterday were few in number, now they "have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palaces, senate, forum; we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods." (Apologeticus written at Carthage, ca. 197) Over the course of the first few centuries, classically trained theologians and philosophers such as Origen and Augustine developed Christian theology and Christian philosophy, which some argue was a Influence of Hellenic Philosophy on Christianity. During this period of first organization the Christian church had to deal mainly with occasional, but sometimes severe persecutions under Roman emperors such as Nero, Valerian, Diocletian, and Galerius. The life of the martyr, who would rather die than renounce his faith, became the highest virtue. The canonical books of the New Testament were agreed, early translations appeared, and a church hierarchy emerged: the Bishop of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome assumed the title Patriarch. Galerius, on his death bed, signed the Edict of Galerius, allowing Christians freedom to practice their religion without hindrance (although early Christian writers like Lactantius consider Galerius the author of the last great persecution of Christians). Then, Roman Emperor Constantine I (emperor) was converted in 312 and with his Edict of Milan (313) made Christianity the religion of the State. However, Rome still subjected Christians to pagan rituals. Many emperors tried to combine the God of the Christians with Mithras, the sun god, in an atempt to unite the empire under one religion. Persecution was briefly revived during the reign of Julian the Apostate (361–363) who tried to restore paganism to the empire; Christianity was later made the officially favored religion in about 382 by Emperor Theodotius. Similar events took place in neighbouring Georgia and Armenia. But in Persian Empire, which was at constant war with Rome, the Christians struggled under the oppresive Sassanid, who tried to revive the Zoroastrian religion. In the Persian empire, at the synod of Seleucia in 410, the bishop of Seleucia was pronounced Catholic and replaced the Patriarch of Antioch as the highest authority of the Assyrian Church of the East. Soon after, during the Nestorian Schism, this church broke all ties with the West. It would be the dominant church of Asia for more than a millennium, with bishopries as far away as India, Java (island), and China. ===Emergence of national Churches=== The question of Jesus's divinity was central to early Christians. A wide range of early writers, including Justin Martyr and Tertullian testify to belief that Jesus was God. At the same time, various Christian groups did not share that belief. The situation came to a head with the teaching of Arius, who brought large numbers of bishops and faithful to his belief that Jesus was a created being. The issue was settled by vote at the First Council of Nicaea, convened by Emperor Constantine I, where the teaching championed by Athanasius, trinitarianism, was enshrined as dogma (See Nicene Creed,Athanasian Creed). Although Constantine ordered all Arian books burned and Arius exiled, Arianism continued to exist and thrive in the empire for several decades, and among the Germanic tribes for almost two centuries, after the decision of the council. This was only the first of several ecumenical council for resolving doctrinal issues. These councils sought to unify Christianity, and were supported by the Byzantine Emperors in order to promote political stability. Some of the theological terminology of these councils may have been misunderstood by those Orthodox whose main language was Syriac, Armenian language, or Coptic language. As a result differences in later theological constructs lead these national branches of the church to break away from the rest, forming Oriental Churches, sometimes called the Monophysites. By the second millennium, Christianity had spread to most of the Western world, the Middle East, parts of Africa, and had made some small inroads into the Far East as well. For the most part it had remained fairly unified in its fundamental beliefs with major theological disagreements being resolved in council. But as the millennium approached, certain major differences in theology and practice became increasingly troublesome. The East-West Schism of 1054 split the Church into Western and Eastern churches: the Western church gradually consolidated under the central authority of Rome (''see'' Roman Catholic Church), while the Eastern church adopted the name "Orthodox" to emphasize their commitment to preserving the traditions of the church and resistance to change. This Eastern Church refused to be consolidated under a single bishop, as this was completely alien to the structure the church had hitherto enjoyed. The Eastern Church recognized the Patriarch of Constantinople as the "First among equals" of the numerous bishops in charge of its Autocephaly churches (''see'' Eastern Orthodoxy). In the European Reformation of the 1500s, Protestantism and numerous similar churches renounced allegiance to Rome in objection to perceived abuses of growing Papal authority and to perceived doctrinal error and novelty in Rome. Key questions in the Reformation controversy are summed up in the famous five solas: ''Sola Scriptura'' (Scripture alone—does the church's authority derive solely from correctly interpreting the Scriptures, or does it have a separate authority?), ''Sola Fide'' (Faith alone—is a person saved through faith in Christ alone, or do the Church, good works and the sacraments contribute?), ''Sola Gratia'' (Grace alone—is a person's salvation purely and exclusively due to God's unmerited grace, or do individual works make a contribution?), ''Solus Christus'' (Christ alone—is Jesus the only mediator between humanity and God, or do the Church and its priests play a part?) and ''Soli Deo Gloria'' (Glory to God alone—does all of the glory for humanity's salvation belong to God, or are the Church and its priests eligible for a part?). The Reformation sparked a vigorous struggle for the hearts and minds of Europeans. Disputes between Roman Catholics and Protestants sparked persecution and were caught up in various wars, both civil and foreign. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism arrived in North America (and later Australasia) with European settlement. Lacking any central authority in either Rome or national governments, Protestants worshipped in hundreds, and later thousands, of independent denominations. Protestantism was taken to South America and Africa by European colonists, especially in the 16th century to 19th century centuries. Orthodoxy first arrived in North America via Russian settlers in the Alaskan region in the 18th century; they came to North America from Europe in much greater numbers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. (See also Restorationism.) In the 19th century and 20th century many Christian-oriented nations, especially in Western Europe, became more secular. Most communist states were governed by avowed atheisms, though only Albania was officially atheistic. Adherents to Fundamentalist Christianity, particularly in the United States, also perceived threats from new theories about the age of the Earth and the evolution of life. [[Image:Christian-lineage.png|framed|center|Differing interpretations of the Bible and other forces led to schisms in Christianity over the millennia, but all branches trace their roots to early Christianity.]] ''For more, see:'' * History of Christianity * Missionarys * History of Christian Missions ==Christianity today== [[Image:Wooden_cross.jpg|right|thumb|140px|The Christian cross and its many variations are traditional Christian symbols.]] According to adherents.com [http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html] Christianity is the world's most widely practiced religion, with 2.1 billion adherents, followed by Islam with 1.3 billion, Irreligion with 1.1 billion, Hinduism with 900 million, Chinese_traditional_religion with 394 million, Buddhism with 376 million, etc. Christianity has many branches, including 1.1 billion Roman Catholic Church, 510 million Protestantism in a number of traditions, 216 million Orthodox Christianity, 84 million Anglicanism, 158 million Independents (unaffiliated with the major streams of Christianity), and 31.7 million "marginals" (Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints (Mormons), etc., these last being denominations which describe themselves as Christian but are not standardly recognized as such by other denominations due to their unorthodox teachings. Although Christianity is the largest religion in the world and there are massive missionary efforts under way, its overall rate of growth is slower than that of some other faiths and of the world population as a whole. While the population of the world grows at roughly 1.25% per year, Christianity is growing at about 1.12% per year. Not all people identified as Christians accept all, or even most, of the theological positions held by their particular churches. Like the Jews, Christians in the West were greatly affected by The Age of Enlightenment in the late 17th century and early 18th century centuries. Perhaps the most significant change for them was total or effective separation of church and state, thus ending the state religion Christianity that existed in so many European countries. Now one could be a free member of society and disagree with one's church on various issues, and one could even be free to leave the church altogether. Many did leave, developing belief systems such as Deism, Unitarianism, and Universalism, or becoming Atheism, Agnosticism, or Humanism. Others created liberal wings of Protestant Christian theology. Modernist Christianity in the late 19th century encouraged new forms of thought and expression that did not follow traditional lines. Reaction to the Enlightenment and Modernism triggered the development of literally thousands of Christian Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic traditionalism splinter groups of the Roman Catholic Church that do not recognize the legitimacy of many reforms the Roman Catholic Church has undertaken, and the growth of hundreds of fundamentalist Christianity groups that interpret the entire Bible in a characteristically literal fashion. In the United States and Europe, liberalism also led to increased secularism. Some Christians have long since stopped participating in traditional religious duties, attending churches only on a few particular holy days per year or not at all. Many of them recall having highly religious grandparents, but grew up in homes where Christian theology was no longer a priority. They have developed ambivalent feelings towards their religious duties. On the one hand they cling to their traditions for identity reasons; on the other hand, the influence of the secular Western mentality, the demands of daily life, and peer pressure tear them away from traditional Christianity. Marriage between Christians of different denominations, or between a Christian and a non-Christian, was once taboo, but has become commonplace. Some traditionally Roman Catholic countries have largely become agnostic. Liberal Christianity grew rapidly during the early 20th century in Europe and North America, by the 1960s gaining the leadership of many of the larger US and Canadian denominations. However, this trend has reversed. At the turn of the 21st century, though secular society tends to consider the more accommodating liberals as the representatives and spokesmen of Christianity, the "mainline" liberal churches are shrinking. This is partly due to a loss of evangelistic zeal, partly due to drift of their membership to conservative denominations, and partly due to the failure of one generation to pass on Christianity to the next. Among the larger Protestant denominations in the United States, only the conservative Southern Baptist Convention is growing. :Category:Evangelical parachurch organisations have grown rapidly in the last half of the 20th century. The liberal Christian Century magazine has shrunk, while being replaced by its challenger, the rapidly growing evangelical Christianity Today. The Enlightenment had much less impact on the Eastern Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. Having to face a much more hostile secular society, especially during the rise of Communism, the church clung to ancient beliefs, even as its membership eroded. Today in Eastern Europe and Russia, a renewing trend is taking place. After decades of communist-instated atheism, there is widespread interest in Christianity, as well as religion in general. Many Orthodox churches and monasteries are being rebuilt and restored, filled beyond capacity; Protestants of many denominations are pouring in to evangelize and plant churches; and the Roman Catholic church is revealing once secret dioceses and undertaking other steps to support Roman Catholic churches more openly. In South America and Africa, Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity form rapidly growing movements that are increasingly sending missionary to Europe and North America. This is also true of Asia where many of the underground house churches intend to send hundreds of thousands of missionaries out over the next decade. As Modernism developed into Consumerism during the second half of the 20th century the Megachurch phenomenon developed – catering for skeptical non-Christians by providing "seeker sensitive" presentations of Christian belief. The Alpha Course can be viewed as an example one such presentation of Christianity. Since the development of Postmodernism with its rejection of universally accepted belief structures in favour of more personalized and experiential truth, organized Christianity has increasingly found itself at odds with the desire many people have to express faith and spirituality in a way that is authentic to them. What has thus far been known as the Emerging Church is a by-product of this trend, as many people who broadly accept Christianity seek to practice that faith while avoiding established Church institutions. Another reaction of some Christians to Postmodernism is the advent of what might be called Postmodern Christianity. A large and growing movement within the Christian church, especially in the West and most visible in the United States, is the Evangelical movement. Most mainstream Protestant denominations have a significantly active Evangelicalism minority, and, in some cases, a dominant majority (see Confessing Movement). Evangelicals are "trans-denominational" and are more willing to have formal and informal relationships with Evangelicals from outside their denomination than to have the same sort of relationship with non-Evangelicals within their denomination. Some Evangelicals have been schism within various church organisations, leaving to form their own denominations. More often they are forced out. It was only by dint of sheer determination that John Wesley, founder of Methodism, was able to remain an Anglican priest against intense opposition. His followers separated in America, and in England after his death. Some Evangelicals claim that their beliefs are no less than true Christianity itself and that those within the church who differ from them may not be true believers. This attitude has led to much disunity amongst churches, especially those with a large modernist influence. Evangelicals cannot be easily categorised, but almost all will believe in the necessity of a personal conversion and acceptance of Jesus as saviour and Lord, the eventual literal Parousia, a more conservative understanding of the Bible and a belief in the miraculous. There are many different types of Evangelicals including Dispensationalism, Reformed theology, Pentecostalism, Charismatic and Fundamentalist Christians. ''See:'' List of Christian denominations, Christianity: Denominations ==Doctrine== Christian Love is basic to many forms of Christianity (See main article Christian Love). Christians often view Christianity as the fulfilment and successor of Judaism, and Christianity carried forward much of the doctrine and many of the practices from the Judaism faith, including monotheism, the belief in a Messiah (or Christ from the Greek Χριστός ''Christós'', which means "anointed one"), certain forms of worship (such as prayer, and reading from religious texts), a priesthood (although most Protestants assert the Universal Priesthood of All Believers), and the idea that worship on Earth is modeled on worship in Heaven. The central belief of Christianity is that by faith in the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus, individuals are saved from death—both spirituality and physical—by redemption from their sins (i.e., faults, misdeeds, disobedience, rebellion against God). Through God's grace, by faith and repentance, men and women are reconciled to God through forgiveness and by sanctification or theosis to return to their place with God in Heaven. Crucial beliefs in Christian teaching are Jesus' incarnation, atonement, crucifixion, and resurrection from the dead to redeem humankind from sin and death; and the belief that the New Testament is a part of the Bible. Many Christians today (and traditionally even more) also hold to supersessionism. Supersessionism is the belief that the Jews' chosenness found its ultimate fulfillment through the message of Jesus: Jews who remain non-Christian are no longer considered to be chosen, since they reject Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. This position has been softened or even completely abrogated by some churches where Jews are recognized to have a special status due to their covenant with God, so that this continues to be an area of on-going dispute among Christians. The emphasis on God giving his son, or the Son (who is God) coming down to earth for the sake of humanity, is an essential difference between Christianity and most other religions, where the emphasis is instead placed solely on humans working for salvation. The most uniform and broadly accepted tradition of doctrine, with the longest continuous representation, repeatedly reaffirmed by official Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant definitions (although not without dissent, as noted below) asserts that specific beliefs are essential to Christianity, including but not limited to: * God is a Trinity, the single eternal being existing in three persons: Father, Son (Divine Logos, incarnated as Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit. * Jesus is both fully God and fully human, two "natures" in one person. * Mary, the mother of Jesus, bore in her womb and gave birth to the Son of God (who is, himself, likewise God), who although eternally existent was formed in her womb by the Spirit of God. From her humanity he received in his person a human intellect and will, and all else that a child would naturally receive from its mother. * Jesus is the Messiah hoped for by the Jews, the heir to the throne of David. He reigns at the right hand of the Father with all authority and power forevermore. He is the hope of all mankind, their advocate and judge. Until he returns at the end of the world, the Church has the authority and obligation to preach the Gospel and to gather new disciples. * Jesus was innocent of any sin. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, believers are forgiven of sins and reconciled to God. Although virtually all Christians agree on this, there are a variety of views on the significance of Jesus' resurrection. Believers are baptized into the resurrection and new life (or death in some groups) of Christ. Through faith, they live by the promise of resurrection from death to everlasting life through Christ. The Holy Spirit is sent to them by Christ, to bring hope and lead mankind into true knowledge of God and His purposes, and help them grow in holiness. * Jesus will return personally, and bodily, to judge all mankind and receive the faithful to himself, so they will live forever in the intimate presence of God. * Some Christians, particularly in the West, refer to the Bible as the "Word of God." Other Christians, particularly in the Eastern Christianity, believe that Jesus alone is the Logos, and see Scripture as an authoritative book, Biblical inspiration by God but written by men. As a result of these differing views, many Christians disagree to varying degrees about how accurate the Bible is and how it should be interpreted. These beliefs are stated in a number of creeds, of which the most important and widely used are probably the Apostles Creed and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, commonly known as the Nicene Creed. These statements of belief were written in the first few centuries after Christ to reject certain heresy. Although there are arguments about specific parts of these creeds, they are still used by mainstream Christians to state their basic beliefs. ''(See also: Athanasian Creed)'' Christianity is considered by mainstream Christians to be the continuation or fulfillment of the Judaism. However, many self-proclaimed Christian organizations throughout history have had varying ideas about the basic tenets of the Christian faith, from ancient sects such as Arianism and Gnosticism to modern groups who have different understandings of fundamental Christian ideas. Some of these groups are the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have a different theological understanding of Jesus, God and the Bible; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who believe that in 1829 God restored the apostolic priesthood to their leader Joseph Smith, Jr., making possible continuing revelation (including additional teachings and scripture), and the Unification Church. While various groups may differ in their approach to the specifics of Christ's role, ministry, and nature (some calling him a god or Gods, and others a man), Christ is generally assumed to have cosmic importance. Some of these groups number themselves among the Christian churches, or believe themselves to be the only true Christian church. Furthermore, present-day liberal Protestant Christians do not define Christianity as necessarily including belief in the deity of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, miracles, the resurrection, the ascension of Christ, or the personality or deity of the Holy Spirit. Liberals may or may not recommend belief in such things, but differentiate themselves from conservative Christians by defining as included within genuine Christianity anyone who explains their views or teachings principally by appeal to Jesus; for example, John 3:16. It is common for those who hold the more traditional tenets of faith described in the paragraph above to assert that some or all of these groups are not true Christians, principally because they feel that by denying fundamental teachings about the nature, actions and teachings of Jesus, such liberals are following a different person, or one of their own devising. Conversely, liberals are often feel that "traditional" Christians have been misled by political organizations spanning thousands of years, and follow dogma designed to assign power to certain institutions. ''Also see the Christian worldview.'' == Orthodoxy and heresy in Christianity == Orthodoxy, i.e., worshipping in harmony with beliefs traditionally established or otherwise interpreted as "correct beliefs," is of extreme importance in the larger branches of Christianity, and much time and energy has been dedicated to delineating what are called heresy, or unacceptable deviations from orthodox thought. Sanctions against heresy have included rebuke, withdrawing mutual recognition as Christians, and sometimes even death for minority individuals or parties, as well as the destruction of all writings associated with those disagreeing parties. The article on heresy gives a comprehensive discussion and list of what have been called heresies by the largest Christian branches. In modern times it is still common for minority Christian movements and individuals to hold beliefs that closely resemble these ancient heresies. But the majority Christian branches continue to view the ancient delineations as an important historical reference for orthodoxy. Heresy continues, though more peacefully than in the past, to be an important issue for many Christians. ==Excommunication== Excommunication is the formal act of the Church in recognizing that a person has removed him or herself from the practice of orthodox faith. It is important to note that people excommunicate themselves by their own actions; the Church merely affirms that fact formally with a declaration of excommunication. It effectively banishes a member of the Church from the communion of believers and the privileges of the Church. Excommunication is generally reserved for the most serious sins, including serious crimes, adultery, polygamy, homosexual conduct, apostasy, and teaching false doctrines. In the case of apostasy and false teaching, excommunication is often a last resort after repeated warnings. In some denominations it may be a final action, while in others it may be rescinded if certain conditions are met, such as the repentance of the excommunicated member. == Christianity's relationship with other faiths == In recent years, some have attempted to find commonality between the major religions. Muslims refer to adherents of most Abrahamic religions as People of the Book, "the Book" symbolizing divine scripture, such as the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an. Christians generally do not view themselves as part of an "Abrahamic religion," but view Abraham as an early figure of faith and recognize his attempt to offer up Isaac as a foreshadowing of God's offering of his Son, Jesus (Gen. 22:1-14; Heb. 11:17-19). Judaism sees Abraham as the founder of the people of Israel and the ancestor of their people. For more information on the relationship between Christianity and other world religions over the years, see Christianity and World Religions . === Christianity and Judaism === Since the Holocaust, there has been much to note in the way of dialogue between some Christians groups and Jews; the article on Christian-Jewish reconciliation studies this issue. Messianic Judaism refers to a group of evangelical Christian religious movements, self-identified as Jewish, who believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Contrary to Judaism, they are trinitarians, professing that Jesus is God, incarnate. Even though many Messianic Jews are ethnically Jewish, they are not considered part of the Jewish community by mainstream Jewish groups. They are not to be confused with the many Christian believers of Jewish ethnic background who are not members of these religious movements, but rather of regular Christian churches. ''For more, see:'' * Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity * Judeo-Christian * Christianity and anti-Semitism === The branches and boundaries of Christianity === The doctrines and practices of Christianity have been subject to a great deal of debate since the founding of Christianity. Over the years, many groups have traced their lineage to Jesus and claimed to be "true Christianity," despite enormous differences in doctrine and practice with the surviving mainstream Christian group. Some of the first examples of this were Marcionism, Arianism and Pelagianism within the first few centuries after Christ. This was followed by the founding of Islam, in which Muhammed claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus sent to reestablish God's true religion following the supposed corruption of the early church, and later by the East-West Schism between Eastern Orthodox (meaning 'true worship') and Catholic (which means "universal") Christianity. The Protestant Reformation led to the development of a great number of denominations with unique teachings and practices distinct from Catholicism and each other, including Lutherans, Quakers, and Mennonites. More recently, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints have claimed to be the restoration and fulfillment of Christ's original teachings, by correcting the perceived corruption of the church (see Great Apostasy), and claiming new revelation and new sacred texts. Some groups similarly claim that Christianity has been modified by the Church Fathers (see Authentic Matthew) and the Protestant Reformers. Some of these new teachings (such as Marcionism) were quickly suppressed as heresies. Others grew into accepted parts of the world-wide church (e.g., Lutherans), some rapidly left the confines of the Christian church altogether or never entered them, such as Islam, now established as one of the major world religions and yet others grew but remained on the edge of what is accepted (or not) as "Christian." All of these divisions were accompanied by a great deal of debate, claims of heresy by both sides, and at times, violence. Opinions differ widely as to what defines Christianity, how much variation is permitted within Christianity, and thus, which groups qualify as "Christian." As a result, the boundaries of exactly what comprises "Christianity" remain a subject of great dispute today. == Christianity and persecution == Christians have been both the victims and the perpetrators of persecution (see Persecution of Christians). Christian martyrs in the first three centuries were crucified in the same manner as Roman political prisoners or eaten by lions as a circus spectacle. They are recognized as martyrs because they preferred to die rather than renounce their Christian faith, which often included making a sacrifice or burning incense to a pagan deity. Some Roman emperors claimed to be gods and demanded corresponding sacrifices or incense as well. Many people have been persecuted, tortured, raped and killed in the Islamic world, Indian Subcontinent and the Far East because they have converted to Christianity. That is why people from that part of the world who have converted to Christianity have left to Europe, the United States, Canada and Australia, because their native third world countries have laws against Christian conversions. In spite of the widely held belief that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings, Christian adherents have at times persecuted, tortured, and killed others for refusing to believe in their type of Christianity. While most modern Christians would condemn such actions, they were carried out by people who were seen as mainstream Christians at the time. During the Crusades, Christian atrocities against Jews in German and Hungarian towns, later also in those of France and England, and in the massacres of non-combatants in Palestine and Syria initiated a tradition of Christian anti-Semitism, which was further bolstered by the blood libel cult, and continued into the 1500s by the Spanish Inquisition. The European colonization movement was endorsed by the mainstream European Christian churches. This endorsement supposedly "legitimized" the exploitation of the colonized lands by the European powers. This colonization led to the destruction of many cultural artifacts, particularly in South America related to the Tahuantinsuyu and Aztecs. Conflicts within Christianity itself have led to persecutions of one Christian group by another. Protestantism, Roman Catholic Church and other Christians have persecuted each other in the name of Jesus. In the second half of the 20th century the violent conflict between armed political groups among the Unionists (Ireland) and Irish nationalism communities in Northern Ireland carried a strong element of sectarianism between Protestants and Roman Catholics. The concept of ''religious tolerance'', that Christians in political authority should permit persons of differing faith to practice their own religions, has risen and fallen many times in history. At times, church leaders have considered tolerance itself to be a heresy. Modern Christianity appears, for the most part, to have adopted a position of tolerance. There are, however, exceptions such as American Christian Reconstructionism which, according to some observers, could pave the way for the persecution of dissenting faiths. This is related to the issues of ecumenism and religious pluralism. == Christian churches worldwide == There are List of Christian denominations practiced around the world today. For information about the various "super-bodies" of churches which many individual congregations or in some cases bishoprics of these churches associate under see full communion. The ancient Christian-Jewish nasrani tradition today survives in South India. == See also == * Assyrian Church of the East * Catholicism in China * Christian Arab * Christian art * Christian calendar * Christian emigration * Christian eschatology * Christian existential humanism * Christian materialism * Christian music * Christian mythology * Christian opposition to anti-Semitism * The stories of Christianity * Christian theological controversy * Christian views of women * Christian Symbolism * Christianity in China * Church websites * Crusade * Great Schism * History of Christianity * Homosexuality and Christianity * John 3:16 * List of Christians * List of Christian denominations * Palestinian Christian * Predestination * The Rise of Christianity (book) by Rodney Stark * Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy ==References== * ''The Story of Christianity'' by Justo L. Gonzalez (1984, 1985, 1999, ISBN 1565635221) * ''Christian Theology: An Introduction'' by Alister McGrath (ISBN 0631225285) * ''Christian Theology Reader'' by Alister McGrath (ISBN 063120637X) * ''Systematic Theology'', an Christian ecumenism trilogy by Thomas Oden ** Volume 1: ''The Living God'' (1992, ISBN 0060663634) ** Volume 2: ''The Word of Life'' (1992, ISBN 0060663642) ** Volume 3: ''Life in the Spirit'' (1994, ISBN 0060663626) == External links == ===Christian sites=== * [http://www.believerscafe.com/ Believerscafe] A large Christian resource site with over 30,000 pages of Christian Classics, Bible Dictionary, Bible versions, articles, devotions and downloads. * [http://catholicapologeticsofamerica.blogspot.com Catholic Apologetics of America] * [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com Eastern Orthodox Christian Information Center] * [http://www.carm.org Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry] - Christianity, Cults, and Other Religions * [http://www.ApologeticsCourses.Com Apologia] - Courses Christianity, Cults, and Other Religions * [http://www.Bible4U.Info Christian Faith] - Exhaustive Information About Christian Faith * [http://www.christiananswers.net ChristianAnswers.net] - In their words - "A site providing biblical answers to contemporary questions". * [http://www.gotquestions.org/Christianity.html What is Christianity and what do Christians believe?] * [http://ship-of-fools.com/ Ship of Fools] - ecumenical "magazine of Christian unrest". With large, lively [http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/ discussion boards.] * [http://givemeananswer.org/ Televised Debates] - "Give Me An Answer" open air debates are recorded on college campus across the United States. Students ask questions and Christian apologist and pastor Cliffe Knechtle gives answers with a biblical perspective. Also has discussion boards. * [http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ Apologetics Index] - Apologetics research resources on religious cults, sects, religions, doctrines, etc. * [http://www.mormon.org An authoritative website discussing basic beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.] * [http://www.catholic.tc The best of Christianity online] - This web site includes articles of Bible study, Sacraments, From Pastor, About the Parish, Missio Sui Iuris. free download our Catholic Mission TCI Newsletter. * [http://www.christian-thinktank.org Christian Thinktank] - Extensive, in-depth apologetics * [http://christians.port5.com Christians] - basic teachings of Christian faith * [http://www.religiousbook.net/Books/Online_books/Hs/What_Is_Christianity.html What Is Christianity?] Christianity implies, first of all, accepting and realizing the Teaching of God given by Him for the embodied people through Jesus Christ. ===General Online sources=== * [http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/index.htm ReligionFacts.com: Christianity] Fast facts, glossary, timeline, history, beliefs, texts, holidays, symbols, people, etc. * [http://www.religiousbook.net/Books/Online_books/Sh/Heart_19.html The Evolution of Christianity] History of Christianity Religion. ===Opposing viewpoints=== * [http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Opposing_Views/Christianity/ List of sites critical of Christianity] ===Christian wikis=== * [http://www.wikichristian.org Wikichristian], a free Christian Encyclopedia, Public Domain Library for all Christian works and a wiki community for all believers. * [http://www.theopedia.com/Main_Page Theopedia], a conservative Calvinist Christian wiki * [http://theconnexion.net/compass/index.php/Main_Page Compass], a wiki about what it means to follow Jesus Christ * [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page OrthodoxWiki], a wiki about the Eastern Orthodox Christian denominations Christianity ga:Críostaíocht kw:Kristoneth li:Christendom ms:Nasarani zh-min-nan:Ki-tok-kàu nds:Christendoom simple:Christianity th:คริสต์ศาสนา vi:Kitô giáo
----
Why does the hard fact part of this article keep getting modified (that there was an election, that there was conflict), but no one seems fit to edit the poor grammar and logical flow of the rest of it? Are some simple facts to hard to handle they need multiple revisions, yet good grammar and article quality don't deserve a little attention? :Probably because the misrepresentation of the current text is so great. (I don't know what it has been replaced with, other than the one time I edited it.) As the text now reads, it sounds as though nobody thought that Jesus was divine, but Constantine made them have a vote on it and *POOF*, he became divine. That representation of the facts is very much leaning toward the atheist/skeptical viewpoint. ::The problem is, there was very much a disagreement about the nature of Christ's divinity. One faction, led by Athanasius, or Saint Athanasius as the Catholic Church now knows him, succeeded in that election. So in fact, yes, this was a seminal moment. And in fact, both parties in the disagreement were self styled Christians- despite the question of Jesus' divinity. Therefore at that juncture Christianity took a defining turn. I don't think it is honest to gloss over that. And I think, if anything, Christianity should be honest. :How's this for an alternative? ::In the early years of Christianity there was a dispute about the nature of Jesus, whether he was just a man (opinion put forward by Arianism, among others) or whether he was divine (opinion put forward by Alexander of Alexandria, among others). The issue was settled by vote at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. :The comment about "paving the way for the divine right of the Catholic Church" is POV and offensive, and IMO adds nothing to the article. Catholicism and Orthodoxy remained united for 700 years after that moment. User:Mpolo 09:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC) :: It's hardly POV Mpolo. Do a little research. Certainly the Catholic Church has done a lot of things it currently may not be proud of, and there is no point in concealing yet one more facet of that history. ::: Could someone explain exactly what the "divine right of the Catholic Church" is? Further, it is very POV that the Church "took a turn" at the Council of Nicaea. The supporters of Athanasius and of Arius each accused the others of changing Christian doctrine by affirming or denying Jesus' divinity. To state that this was a change is to unilaterally uphold the Arian POV. User:Wesley 04:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::: In sum; before Nicaea, there were Christians who were Trinitarian and Christians who were not. They disagreed on the divinity question. After the election one side, Arius's side, was eradicated and the disagreeing views, and all written records, were burned, exhiled, etc. This established the subsequent tone for the succeeding centuries, whereby trinitarianism was dominant. It is therefore revisinistic to claim that there was no determination here. ::::: Sorry, but your history seems to be incomplete. Far from being eradicated, Arianism actually dominated much of Christianity during the fourth century. Athanasius was banished from Alexandria at least five different times, perhaps as many as seven times, because of his opposition to Arianism. (He was also tried for murder, but exonerated when the supposed victim appeared at trial to testify on his behalf.) Certainly there were Arians before Nicaea, but it's debatable whether there were Arians prior to the fourth century. Arius himself didn't start teaching his view until I think around 309 or so; it spread quickly partly because he was also skilled at writing catchy tunes that reflected his theology. So it's not at all clear that there was a big ''change'' at the Council of Nicaea, even if it was deterministic in the sense of fending of both Arius and other future innovations in theology. User:Wesley 17:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::: That's like saying that after 9/11, Osama has been running free- even though we all know the U.S. has been doing what it can to get rid of him. There were two basic things that came from the first council of Nicaea- setting the date for Easter (yawn), and basically excommunication/exhiling/banning Arius and his followers- why? Because their ideas were a greater threat to the goals of Constantine and Athanasius/the Early Catholic Church than any other things out there. Sorry, I don't quite follow your analogy to Osama bin Laden. Constantine's main objective in calling the council was to promote or attain unity among the Christians. Some historians think he actually favored the Arians before the council, but let the bishops decide and then went with their decision. Athanasius was trying to defend the Christian faith as he understood it from what he believed was a grave error. Incidentally, Athanasius himself was only a deacon at the Council of Nicaea and so didn't have a vote, although he was present as assistant to the Patriarch of Alexandria and I think was allowed to speak there. He had been opposing Arius for some time prior to the council, since both were from Egypt. He was by no means the only vocal opponent of Arius at the council. User:Wesley \ Getting back to the point, can we agree that the Arians and Orthodox both thought they were espousing the 'original' Christianity, and each accused the other of inventing a new doctrine regarding Jesus Christ? User:Wesley 17:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) Reaffirm? So America reaffirmed that Bush should stay in office? User:24.176.6.165 17:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::"decided that Jesus was always/is God " This is the primary statement of the Council of Nicaea. There was debate about whether God exhisted before Christ, etc. The Council resolved that Jesus is and always had been God. That is in fact the statement of the Council, the result of the Council, and it should be recorded rather than all this pussyfooting around the subject. This statement alone accounts for so much subsequent history it is negligent to omit it. User:24.176.6.165 17:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::The problem is that, as you have stated it, this can be interpreted as the thesis of a certain book of pseudo-history called The Da Vinci Code. This is not the thesis of serious scholars of Church history (or very few scholars of Church history). Arius's teaching was something ''new''. It's not that the Christians were divided from day one on this issue, and the council "decided it". The vast majority were with the "is God" viewpoint, until Arius started spreading his doctrine, starting between 315 and 317. (Arius didn't work in a vacuum, of course. The school of Antioch was tending in that direction even with its founder Lucian of Antioch, who some scholars see as the true father of Arianism. He saw his conclusions as coming directly out of the Gospel, of course.) But the theory was largely limited to that city until Arius' efforts. At the moment the Council was held, there was considerable discussion, and even a large number of bishops supporting the Arian view, but that division only dates from less than forty years previous to the council. The statement you want to put in could easily be interpreted to mean that "no one thought that Jesus was God, but the Council had a vote and imposed that belief", as Dan Brown would have us believe. This is simply false. User:Mpolo 18:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) ::::Although I have heard of the The Davinci Code I have never actually read it. However, the writings of Athanasius and others can be found on the Writings of the Church Father's website and clearly demonstrates a very meaningful discourse. Mpolo, you are making straw man arguments (the opposite argument in an extreme case is false, therefore your entire argument is false; for example, there are Democrats who have been members of the KKK, therefore all Democrats are racist) and diminishing the topic. There is a crucial point here that is very pivotal and it has demonstrated itself in the response by various non-Catholic/Orthodox religions from Islam to Mormonism to many flavors of Protestantism regarding this very debate. User:24.176.6.165 20:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::My point is that the ''way'' this is being stated implies a state of affairs that isn't true. Yes, there was a lot of discussion on the issue. However, the discussion stemmed from the last 40-50 years before the council (one could argue that the opinion existed but was never formalized, but that argument remains speculation, since we don't have any documents to back that up). That's why the wording "reaffirmed" is better. We can and should make it clear that there was a division. (Which, by the way, didn't end with the vote of the council, as some of those who have supported your wording in the past might argue.) What we can't do is pretend that there is no sign of unity on the issue before Arius. I'll try to think up an alternative formulation to satisfy both sides here. User:Mpolo 08:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) ::::::The reaffirm implies that the Trinity / both God and man in past present and future dualism was in place before 40-50 years beforehand; however, that theory was posited by Athanasius in an attempt to solve the conundrum. Do we have any non-biased sources that support this, that have not been tainted by the Church, that support the Trinitarian concept before 250 AD? Even 1 John 5:7/1 John 5:8 has been a forgery conducted to support the Trinitarian concept added later on; we need some unbiased evidence that it was there beforehand- and I don't think the Catholic Church will be the source of such an unbiased document, intrinsically. User:24.176.6.165 14:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) === Several references to early trinitarianism === (Back to the left) Here are several references: * Didache 7:1 (dates from about AD 70): "After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" : Although Didache mentions them separately there is no indication that he is stating that Jesus is God; in fact, quite the opposite; does one say 'pay your bill to AT&T, Bell South, and Ma Bell?' No, it would be illogical to write the same concept three times unless you were trying to make a point. Unless Didache were in fact making that singular point, the statement undermines rather than supports a mainstream concept that Jesus is and always had been God. User:24.176.6.165 18:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) * Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110) : "[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" : From the Wikipedia on Ignatius: Nowadays only the shorter variants of those seven letters are thought to be genuine writings of Ignatius. Their longer variants are thought to be emendations from the fifth century, created to postumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness into certain theological fights of that age, while the other letters bearing his name, and the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom, are thought to be pure forgeries from around the same time. User:24.176.6.165 * Justin Martyr (AD 151): "We will prove that we worship him reasonably, for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things, but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein" : Second is hardly identical. User:24.176.6.165 * Athenagorus (AD 177): "The Son of God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by ‘the Son,’ I will tell you briefly: He is the first-begotten of the Father, not as having been produced, for from the beginning God had the Word in himself, God being eternal mind and eternally rational, but as coming forth [from the Father] to be the model and energizing force of all material things" * Theophius (AD 180): "It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all, for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" * Ireneus (AD 189): "For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit." : This doesn't state that Jesus is and always had been God. Further, one of Ireneus' books is 'On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis', demonstrating an early mainstream debate on Christ's divinity. User:24.176.6.165 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) * Tertullian (AD 216): "Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" : Tertullian was one Partisan in a spiritual debate against Marchion; this is more of the same sort of thing we see around the time of Nicaea; and Tertullian is one side. This hardly counts as evidence that there was a universal Christian understanding of the trinity, instead it supports the idea that the debate went a lot earlier than 50 years before Nicaea, to at least as you point out, 216. See the Tertullian Project at [http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-39.htm#P9237_2537879] for an example. User:24.176.6.165 * More from Tertullian: "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being, not singularity of number" * Hippolytus (228): "The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the Being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" : Here we have an example of someone stating that the Spiritual transcends the temporal; there is not explicit statement that Jesus is and always was God. User:24.176.6.165 * Origen (225): "No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word, the Wisdom, was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however, that there was never a time when he did not exist, is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity" : This does not say that Origen states the 'the Son is God' - what it says is that the discussion of these divine concepts transcends time- which it may well; however, one could also argue that the ten commandments transcend time as well. User:24.176.6.165 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) * More Origen: "For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" : Again, this is a statement that the spiritual concepts transcend time; they do not state that Jesus is and always was God. User:24.176.6.165 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) * Novatian (235): "For Scripture announces Christ is also God, as it announces God himself is man. It has described Jesus Christ to be man, as it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of Man; nor does it only say, the Son of Man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of Man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" : Novatian sounds very odd and one may wonder about how mainstream were his views: see the Catholic Encyclopedia on Novation at [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm]. User:24.176.6.165 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) * Pope Dionysius (262): "Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were—I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist, and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd" : Unfortunately as I said Pope Dionysius is part of the Catholic Church, by definition, and had something to gain/ was biased. User:24.176.6.165 * More Pope Dionysius: "Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus, his Son, and in the Holy Spirit and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’" : Gregory is more recent and about the same timeframe as the early Arian movements. User:24.176.6.165 * Gregory Thaumaturgus (265): "There is one God . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity nor anything caused to be brought about, as if at some former period it was non-existent and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but, without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" So where is your evidence that Arius' doctrine predates him and Lucian of Antioch? (Note that I included quotes from Tertullian, a Montanist, Hippolytus, an anti-Pope, and Origen, whom the Catholic Church has never considered a saint, though I think the Orthodox do.) -- User:Mpolo 15:18, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) : Clearly as many of your example's primary writings centered around debates about the divinity of Jesus Christ, there is no demonstrable evidence that early Christians were uniform in believing in the Jesus is and always was God concept. There was in fact an ongoing debate that far preceded Arius and his teacher. User:24.176.6.165 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::This argument is really getting pointless. You have a point of view for which you can present no evidence, and have essentially said that anyone who is Catholic will be rejected out of hand, and at the same time reject anyone who is not Catholic (Novatian was an antipope) out of hand as non-mainstream. ::I have admitted that there was discussion. The witness of a wide range of writers though, is meant to show "consensus". The First Council of Nicaea did not represent a break with tradition, but rather confirmed the belief of the majority of early witnesses. Perhaps "reaffirm" is the wrong word, though, as it might imply that there was no discussion at all before Arius. Let me try a more long-winded, but hopefully more accurate phrasing: :::The question of Jesus's divinity was central to early Christians. A wide range of early writers, including Justin Martyr and Tertullian testify to belief that Jesus was God, or that he was second only to God the Father. At the same time, various groups arose that denied this teaching. The situation came to a head with the teaching of Arius, who brought large numbers of bishops and faithful to his belief that Jesus was a created being. The issue was settled by vote at the First Council of Nicaea, where the teaching later championed by Athanasius was enshrined as dogma. Arianism continued to exist for several decades after the decision of the council. ::Is that acceptable? We ought to include the name of at least one pre-Arian Christological heresy that denies the divinity of Christ (Marcionism was more the relation between Old and New Testaments, not denying the divinity of Christ at all, making him the son of the "good God" of the New Testament.) User:Mpolo 18:56, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) :: I'd go far that one. User:24.176.6.165 19:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::: My only quibble is that it survived for several decades within the Byzantine Empire as you said, but until at least the fifth or sixth century among some European tribes who had been evangelized by the Arians in the fourth century. If I remember correctly, I think the First Council of Nicaea had only two dissenting votes out of over 300 bishops assembled; if that can be verified, I think it would be worth mentioning. User:Wesley 01:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::: That's fine if we can add in how clubs were employed at the Council of Nicaea. User:24.176.6.165 13:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) ===Very Early non-trinitarian reference === From the Gospel of Thomas. circa 50-90, unearthed in 1945: 104 [100]. They showed Jesus a piece of money and said to him: "The people who belong to Caesar ask us for taxes." He said to them: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's, and what is mine give me!" (Translation, Doresse, http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas100.html#) :Apparently a writer that preceded Athanasius' Canon, saw fit to mention Caesar, Jesus, and God as three separate entities. Now that additional bit disappeared from Athanasius' Trinitarian Canon. Interesting, No? == Cross == I think the insertion that :''and in some groups it is considered idolatry and not used in worship.'' Is worthy of inclusion somehow. Rather than simply deleting it, we should probably incorporate it. As for an image for Christianity, I think it is appropriate that there be a cross with an explanation in the caption that the cross is the generally recognized icon of Christianity, though some Christian groups don't identify with its use. In other words, we can include the NPOV-requisite disclaimer without getting into particulars of idolatry and worship. User:Hawstom 18:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) The only thing we have to do in my opinion is throw a bone to people who are going to be continually tempted to chip in their two cents because the cross is at the top of the page and they say, "Wait, that's not *my* Christianity!". Sheer entropy control is all I am after. If we can come up with something that will tend to stabilize the page, then we are making progress. I tried a non-specific reference that I thought might work. And I think maybe in this case a very brief, non-specific reference will satisfy people. If we say LDS and JW, then before we know it someone comes along and disagrees. The anon who made that edit will be back, and for two considerations, we need to be sure he is happy. 1) We want him as a Wikipedian. 2) We don't want to continually have to fight him. I don't want to be disagreeable, but could we do something a little more non-specific, but still accurate? User:Hawstom 20:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) :''restore caption for now -- it seems weird to refer to it as an icon for "Non-Christians"'' The non-Christian POV of the cross is quite important. The cross is the world symbol of Christianity even if I don't choose to use it in my worship and iconography. User:Hawstom 21:05, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) :IMHO, while the first points are true for some very small number of the world's Christians, noting it in the caption for a cross very much overemphasizes the matter. Can it be put somewhere in the ''text'' of the article? And as far as the second, while it is true, I would argue that it is not an ''essential'' characteristic of the cross, and that that should go into the article Christian cross if it's not there already. Thanks, User:Bcorr|User talk:Bcorr 21:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) What does a fellow ask himself when he visits that causes him to change the image caption? I think he says a few things: * "Why did they choose the cross as the main image for this page?" Anybody could ask this, and only a few months ago the icon was a fish. I believe it should be a cross, though perhaps a more generic two black lines instead of somebody's wooden cross. * "Why don't they say that some people don't use the cross as their personal icon of Christianity? My POV is not being represented here." We apparently have to address this or explain briefly why we are using the cross as the illustration for the article. (I again think we are right, but apparently we need to justify it.) * "I am going to explain here that some don't use the cross. After all, it says Edit this Page right there." I think we have to head this off. Now, I grant that 30 million known official non-users of the cross in LDS and JW are small compared to 2 billion Christians and 4 billion humans. Perhaps we should let this issue go for a while. But if it keeps popping up again, we are eventually going to be forced to throw that POV a bone in good Wikipedia fashion. Thinking now was the time to do it, I jumped in to try. But maybe I am premature. User:Hawstom 22:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'm going to remove the part of that caption that talks about it being established as a Christian symbol in the fourth century based on these earlier references: * Paul says in I Corinthians that he will boast in nothing but the Cross (as opposed to his academic training, lineage, etc.); * The Epistle of Barnabas (first or second century) discusses the symbolism of the cross as found in the Old Testament, including Moses' outstretched arms during the Israelite's battle with the Amalekites. So the author of the epistle already saw it as a symbol of salvation and victory for God's people; * Ignatius of Antioch also writes about the cross as a symbol in his ''Epistle to the Trallians'', again no later than the second century. If these references are deemed insufficient, I'm confident I can find more. I can also look up more precise references and actual quotes of the three alluded to above if anyone wants those. I just don't have them in front of me right now. User:Wesley 16:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Analitical materials == [http://www.religiousbook.net/Books/Online_books/Jt/Jesus_Teaching_0.html The Original Teaching of Jesus Christ] 1) "Christianity" in Wikipedia is not only christian's view. The article, which not contain different views, is non-enciclopedian, but only "confession". It is not good. 2) This material is not commercial information. 3) This book was written with blessing of God and under His guidance and contan deep knowledge. 4) I think you not read this book yet. Sorry for my bad english, Yours faithfully, Skywalker :I removed the "Original teaching" link, and wrote "v minority, POV link". I think that this is an accurate statement. To answer your points - 1. The article isn't written from a Christian's point of view - it's pretty neutral I think. 2. I didn't consider this when deleting the link. 3. That's your point of view - I'd seriously disagree with it, but again that isn't why I deleted it. 4. No, I haven't read all of it, but I have read a few of the pages. :The reason I deleted it is because the book makes unverifiable statements about what its author believes to be true. It does not attempt to reconstruct the orignal teaching of Jesus by any historical, textual criticism or scientific method that I can see. The text itself is probably more Gnostic than Christian, while the website on which it is published is syncreistic. I think that the purpose of the Christianity article should be to present information on the beliefs of mainstream and large minority groups, and on groups who disagree with these beliefs. I think that the current article does that, but I don't think that the addition of the link accurately represents what is believed about Christianity by any significant minority of people. Wikipedia is not a collection of websites - we'd soon be swamped if we included every website which discusses Chrisitanity. I think we can only choose the most appropriate to list, and I'm afraid that in my opinion, this website is not on that list. :Furthermore, I note that a link to the same book (on a different webiste) is also listed on the Jesus page - I certainly don't think it needs to be listed twice. I hope that this helps you understand why I deleted your link. If people disagree with me, then I'm sure they'll say and the link will be re-instated. --User:Grutter 10:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) --------------- I think the true christianity is not "crosses" or "fishes"... It is not symbols. I think the christianity doctrine is not only approved of God (Thrinity, Father, Son) existence... This is only packing of christianity... But this box is empty now. Where is content? True content of this theaching is LOVE, but people removed it (removed out of maind, hearts and encyclopedias ) :) I read this word in Biblie, but I can't find word "Love" in this article... Doctrine without Love is dead, this is only description of christianity "box". I think the spirit of this doctrine may be discribed here. Unfortunately, my english language is bad and can't write about it in article. Could you do it? ---- "listed twice" - You are right, this is my mistake. Yours faithfully, Skywalker == Lack of balance == This article is generally good but one-sided. I believe that there should be a section on criticism of Christianity, including some mention of the mass murder and cultural destruction that it has wrought over the past two thousand years. What do others think? User:Shorne 17:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) : Done and done. See Christianity#Christianity_and_persecution, and Christianity_and_World_Religions. The article Roman_Catholic_Church has a section too. Having said all that, a link to the Crusades would be handy - that's been added too. Wiki's got it. User:Krupo 20:12, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) == Christian or Christian? == So what is an adherent? An editor just chaned adherent to claimant. While making the case ambiguous (claiming what?), the debate goes, what makes someone Christian? Mostly it comes from the Christian belief that a person can belong to only one religion. I personally belong to four religions. If someone says that they are a Christian does that make them one? I think the question is complicated by the fact that different religions retain membership in different ways. For instance, Jews are Jews only if they are a convert or have Jewish mother. The ambiguousness comes to a head when we add all the Christian denominations. 70% of Americans consider themselves born-again Christians, just because they are not babtised and don't attend Church who are you to say they aren't Christians? --User:Sunborn 20:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Leave it as adherent. More standard for this type of usage, I say. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 20:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) :''Claimant'' may not be the best word, but ''adherent'' is a distortion. The Roman Catholic Church, to which most Christians belong, keeps people on the books once they're listed as Catholics and is generally quite obstructive about removing their names when asked to do so. Hundreds of millions of "Catholics" never go to a church or otherwise practise Christianity; many of them are adherents of another religion or atheists. I very much doubt whether there is any basis to the claim that two billion people in the world actually believe in the dogma of any variety of Christianity. User:Shorne 20:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Yeah, you may be right, but I think that the estimates used were from Census which would be more accurate. The problem of maintaining internal lists is also seen in Mormonism and Bahai. So I magine that these things were considered. --User:Sunborn The most credible numbers I've seen (overall) are at www.adherents.com. At least there they account for all people and make the numbers add up to 5 billion (or whatever :-) ). User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 21:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I cannot believe that these things were taken into account. Two billion is about 80% of the population of the world outside non-Soviet Asia. Do you honestly believe that that many people are Christians? User:Shorne 22:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::I had a look at www.adherents.com. Here's an example of the distortion that I mentioned: the first six presidents of the US were non-Christians, yet three of them are listed as Episcopalians. (Two of the others as Unitarians, the remaining one as being of "no specific denomination".) If this place doesn't compile accurate data on forty-odd individuals whose biographies are widely available, how reliable can it be on such matters as the religious affiliations of all the people in the world? User:Shorne 22:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Well, who are you going to cite as more reliable? I realize it is challenging, but is there a better answer other than original research? Also, it sounds like there is dispute about what the religion of a particular person (president) is. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 23:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::I don't have any research to cite. Being an atheist, I don't really care much about the relative popularity of various religions that are all wrong anyway. But that doesn't mean that the "research" of www.adherents.com is any good. Hell, it lists juche as a religion—the tenth largest in the world, no less—, when it's nothing but a political ideology. ::::I checked their "research" and found that a number of their sources go back to the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', which does use church membership as its starting point. In other words, lots of people are counted as Catholics without even knowing it, merely because at some point their parents had them registered as such with a church. User:Shorne 01:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Um, that is a fallacy of small sample size. I will demonstraight. The first presidents are a special case as I listed above, people can be more than one religion. Many of the founding fathers of the united states were not christian, but actually Deism. This would not have looked so great in a land with many Christians so many still went to church and acted and called themselves Christians. The non-religion presidents were probably deists too. --User:Sunborn ::::Jefferson made no secret of being a non-Christian. "Episcopalian" Washington escorted his wife to church every week but stood outside the sanctuary and waited for her, so repugnant was Christianity to him. Two of the first six US presidents were Unitarians—an inoffensive way to say "atheists". It's not clear to me that these four, at any rate, called themselves Christians. User:Shorne 01:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::As for the sample size, I agree that the methodologies will be different. But I think that there is enough evidence to cast doubt on the numbers posted at www.adherents.com, as I indicated above. User:Shorne 01:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) George_Washington#Religious_beliefs. ??? Can somebody do a better job than adherents.com? If so, cite them. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 23:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Claimant versus Adherent- I prefer Adherent. To define a Christian as one who 'claims' to be a Christian (claimant) would of course, by simple logic, remove the deaf mutes. It would also remove people who do not communicate for the most part to others. However a large part of Christianity has been the Monastic movement, characterised by Silence, and Adherence to certain beliefs and ways (See Rules of St. Benedict). A Christian can be a Christian on a deserted island. User:24.176.6.165 == First statement in image caption == I think the first statement ''the cross is an ancient Christian symbol'' is POV. Jehovah's Witnesses and some historians don't believe that. See also Talk:Christian cross. User:Rantaro 03:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :You are correct that would make it POV. But are you disputing the meaning of ancient? What exactly don't you believe? User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 03:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::See Talk:Christian_cross#Moved_from_article. User:Rantaro 09:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) === Poll on image and caption === What do you propose would be the ideal: ::The ideal primary image for the article? User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom :::I can't think of a good reason why Wikipedia can't use a cross as the primary image for this article despite the fact I don't have one in my home. Christianity is iconized in the world with a cross, and that's just the way it is. I don't like the cross that is there right now. It looks too much like a Catholic believer's cross. I think a simple black painted cross like a small t without a tail would be perfect for Wikipedia. If I were to disregard tradition and world opinion, I might prefer a picture of a man in a white or red (blood-stained) robe with arms stretched down and out out and apparent nail prints in hands, feet, and wrists with clouds in the background representing the risen Lord of Christianity.User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 03:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::The ideal NPOV caption if the image ''must'' be a cross? User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom :::The cross is recognized across the world as a symbol of Christianity. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 03:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::oops, changed before reading talk, sorry guys. I didn't touch ancient and the edit was well summarized though. --User:Sunborn 04:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ''Most people think that the cross is an ancient symbol...'' What?!? Earlier on this page, I've quoted from St. Paul in the New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas, and Ignatius of Antioch as examples of early Christians using the cross as a symbol in their writings. Are these uses contested? How many more examples does it take? It seems easier to make the argument that Jesus never existed at all, than to make the argument that there weren't any Christians who wrote about the cross and what it symbolized. Someone please enlighten me. User:Wesley 04:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I think that the cross is the best symbol to use and that the caption should read something like "The cross is widely recognised as an ancient Christian symbol", etc. In addition to Wesley's quotes, the earliest image I've been able to find is from the grave of Rufinas and Irene (early 3rd century), although there is also the anti-Christian graffiti "Alexamenos worships his God", (late 2nd century) which shows a person with a donkey's head being crucified on a cross. I got this info from The Lion Handbook History of Christianity, but the images can be seen online at [http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/pictures/ChristianW.htm Bible Picture Gallery]. I don't think there can be any serious historical doubt that the cross is a very ancient Christian symbol. --User:Grutter 09:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus died on cross, but on stake. See Talk:Christian_cross#Moved_from_article. Then I think you understand this is POV. --User:Rantaro 09:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::The objections of the Jehovah's Witnesses to the cross as a valid symbol are quite rightly documented both on the Christian cross page and on the pages dealing specifically with Jehovah's Witnesses. However, the vast majority of people, both Christian and non-Christian, associate the cross with Christianity. The Jehovah's Witnesses were founded in the 1870's and only abandoned the use of the cross in 1936 (according to Wikipedia). The historical evidence that Wesley and I have cited shows that the cross was used early on as a symbol of Christianity, and so the statement "the cross is an ancient Christian symbol" is therefore factually accurate. I therefore think that removing the cross as the first symbol on the Christianity page is actually more POV than leaving it there. --User:Grutter 14:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Any good Christain and non-Christian should know the fish was the first symbol of Christiandom. It was use in "Jesus's Lifetime" occording to biased sources. Also, it was found in a Christian grave circa 74AD. First no, primary yes. :: It might be possible for the JW's to insist that Jesus died on a stake, but that later Christians mistakenly thought he died on a cross. They already disagree with other assertions of the early church. So, saying the cross was used early on as a symbol of Christianity doesn't necessarily contradict the JW's, any more than saying that early Christians thought Jesus was God. JW's admit this, just say that they were wrong on this point, as far as I understand. See Great Apostasy for instance. User:Wesley 16:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) We need to stop arguing about the cross and make it look better. The Islam article is head and shoulders about this one in the aesthetic category. We need a simple two-tone computer-generated cross graphic and a Christianity series box like the Islam one. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 04:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Jesus as son of God == It says- "The vast majority of christians believe that Jesus is the son of God" All ''True'' christians believe that Jesus is the son of God. User:Nintendomon74 21:14, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC) :JW also believe that Jesus is the son of God. If your definition is right, JW are "True" Christians. User:Rantaro 00:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) : Then the question is, which Christians don't believe Jesus is the son of God, that causes the artical to say "The vast majority" instead of "All"? User:Wesley 16:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I don't know, but I'll bet this: Any Christians who say they don't believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God will probably also agree that nonetheless, "Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." In other words, I don't know of anyone who would come right out and claim that believing Jesus Christ is ''not'' the Son of God is their official Christian stance. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 19:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::The statement above by Nintendomon74 is an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy; please see it from more information. User:Jayjg 04:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::While your comment is true, Jayjg, I made a non-fallacious statement. You may be a true scottsman and not put sugar on your porridge, but my statement refers to religious views. To be a Christian, you have to believe that Jesus is the son of God. User:Nintendomon74 16:43, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC) ::::Given the comments, unless someone can provide evidence that a group calling themselves Christian nonetheless deny that Jesus is the Son of God I think that we can alter the statement to "Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God." --User:Grutter 12:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Evolution vs. Creation == I've deleted this discussion, as it doesn't belong here and has been covered elsewhere. If you really care you can read it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Christianity&oldid=6515584 here] (but please don't edit it otherwise you'll remove any more recent changes). --User:Grutter 08:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Monotheistic vs Trinitarianism == Note: The "Monotheism" vs "Trinitarian" statements which were in the lead paragraph are contradictory. I realize that not everyone may see it this way. But these points are explained fully and more appropriately below under "Doctrines" For the sake of editorial accuracy, here is the secon
ChristianIty
#REDIRECT Christianity
Christianity
Christianity is the world's largest religion. It is based on the life and teachings of Jesus as described in the New Testament of the Bible. ==Beliefs == The central and some would argue the most contested concept is " The Greatest Command " or the "New Command" of Jesus (see Christian Love). Most Christians ( not all see Jonadabs ) believe Jesus to be the Son of God and the Messiah of the Jews as prophet in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible). This is reflected in their use of the term "Christ" to describe Jesus, which is derived from the Greek language translation for "Messiah". The word ''Christian'' means "belonging to Christ" or "of Christ". Although Christianity is a monotheism religion,Christians believe in a God that exists as three divine persons (technically Greek ''hypostasis''), called the Trinity. Christianity encompasses numerous religious traditions that widely vary by culture, as well as thousands of diverse beliefs and sects. Christianity is generally grouped into three main branches, which split from one another in disputes over doctrine: #Roman Catholicism (the largest single denomination, with over one billion adherents), #Orthodox Christianity (including Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy), and #Protestantism (numerous denominations & schools of thought, including Anglicanism, Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Methodism). When combined, Christianity is the world's largest single religion, with an estimated 2.0 billion followers or about 33% of the world's population. The vast majority of Christian religions (generally including Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and most forms of Protestantism, but not Restorationism) derive their beliefs from the conclusions reached by the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E., known as the Nicene Creed. This describes the beliefs that God (as a Trinity of distinct persons with one substance) became human on earth, born as Jesus pursuant to the Old Testament scriptures, was crucified by humanity, died and was buried, only to be resurrected on the third day to then rise to Heaven and "sitteth at the right hand of" (become one with) God. Christians generally believe that faith in Jesus is the only way to achieve salvation and to enter into heaven, and that salvation is a gift given by the grace of God. ==History== ===Origins=== Christianity originated in the first century. According to Acts of the Apostles 11:19 and 11:26 in the New Testament, Jesus' followers were first called Christians by non-Christians in the city of Antioch, where they had fled and settled after early persecutions in Judea. After Jesus' death, early Christian doctrine was taught by Peter, Paul of Tarsus, and the other apostles. According to the New Testament Jesus was a descendant of Judah who declared himself to be the long awaited Messiah (Gospel of John 8:23–24, 14:11), but was rejected as an apostate by the people generally considered to be the Jewish authorities (Gospel of Matthew 26:63–64). He was condemned for blasphemy and executed by the Roman Empire around the year 30. The formal charge cited in his execution was leading a rebellion (Gospel of Luke 23:1–5): he was called the "King of the Jews" by Pontius Pilate (John 19:19–22; see Luke 16:8) on the INRI or statement of the charge hung over the condemned on the cross. The Gospels indicate that the Roman charge was actually an attempt to appease the Jewish authorities, although some scholars argue that it was an ordinary Roman trial of a rebel. According to Christians, the Old Testament predicted the death and humiliation of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament. Examples include the book of Isaiah that alludes to the slapping (Matt. 26:67–68; Isa. 50:6, 52:14–15; Gospel of Mark 14:65; Luke 23:63–64), whipping (Isa. 53:5; John 19:1; Matt. 27:26) and general humiliation that is centred on the given references. Jesus' apostles were the main witnesses of his life, teaching and resurrection from the dead, although some of the early traditions of the church name numerous disciples (as many as Seventy Apostles, including James the Just, Mark, Luke, Mary Magdalene, etc) who also followed Jesus in his travels and witnessed his miracles and teachings. After his crucifixion, his apostles and other followers claimed that Jesus rose from the dead, and set out to preach the new message. The original apostles may have written some portions of the New Testament's Gospels and Epistles; however, the four gospels are not considered to have been written eponymously by their respective namesakes. Many of the New Testament's twenty-seven books were written by Paul of Tarsus. Twelve Epistles name him as writer, and some traditions also credit him as the writer of the book of Epistle to the Hebrews. The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are stated as having been written by Luke, whom many believe to have been under Paul's direct influence. Acts cites Paul as a student of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), a leading figure amongst the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 5:34–40) and a noteworthy authority in his own right (Acts 28:16–22) considering that the Jews of Rome sought his opinion on Christianity. Paul was the principal missionary of the Christian message to the Gentile world. ===Early Church=== [[Image:Ichthus.png|thumb|The story goes that an early Christian, upon meeting another person, might draw an arc in the earth, and if the other person shared the faith, he would draw another arc completing this ichthys, a symbol of Christianity.]] Christianity spread rapidly over the first three centuries aided by the relative internal peace and good roads of the Roman Empire: * via Egypt into North Africa, Sudan and Ethiopia * via Mesopotamia to Persian Empire, Inner Asia and India * via Greece and Rome to Europe There were two main communities of Christians, the Jewish Christians and the Hellenism Christians. Jewish Christians were those Jews and Gentile converts who observed the Law of Moses (including circumcision, dietary restrictions and the concept of purity, sabbath, quartodecimanism) pejoratively called judaize. Hellenistic Christians were those who were more influenced by the Greek-speaking world and believed that the central message of Christianity could be re-presented in ways more appropriate for Gentiles. Both these groups contributed to the New Testament and both contained within them a wide spectrum of beliefs (see J. Dunn 1977 ''Unity and Diversity in the New Testament''). One of the first great writers of Christianity, Tertullian, sums this up in a rhetorical address to a Roman governor with the fact that, as for the Christians of Carthage that just yesterday were few in number, now they "have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palaces, senate, forum; we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods." (Apologeticus written at Carthage, ca. 197) Over the course of the first few centuries, classically trained theologians and philosophers such as Origen and Augustine developed Christian theology and Christian philosophy, which some argue was a Influence of Hellenic Philosophy on Christianity. During this period of first organization the Christian church had to deal mainly with occasional, but sometimes severe persecutions under Roman emperors such as Nero, Valerian, Diocletian, and Galerius. The life of the martyr, who would rather die than renounce his faith, became the highest virtue. The canonical books of the New Testament were agreed, early translations appeared, and a church hierarchy emerged: the Bishop of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome assumed the title Patriarch. Galerius, on his death bed, signed the Edict of Galerius, allowing Christians freedom to practice their religion without hindrance (although early Christian writers like Lactantius consider Galerius the author of the last great persecution of Christians). Then, Roman Emperor Constantine I (emperor) was converted in 312 and with his Edict of Milan (313) made Christianity the religion of the State. However, Rome still subjected Christians to pagan rituals. Many emperors tried to combine the God of the Christians with Mithras, the sun god, in an atempt to unite the empire under one religion. Persecution was briefly revived during the reign of Julian the Apostate (361–363) who tried to restore paganism to the empire; Christianity was later made the officially favored religion in about 382 by Emperor Theodotius. Similar events took place in neighbouring Georgia and Armenia. But in Persian Empire, which was at constant war with Rome, the Christians struggled under the oppresive Sassanid, who tried to revive the Zoroastrian religion. In the Persian empire, at the synod of Seleucia in 410, the bishop of Seleucia was pronounced Catholic and replaced the Patriarch of Antioch as the highest authority of the Assyrian Church of the East. Soon after, during the Nestorian Schism, this church broke all ties with the West. It would be the dominant church of Asia for more than a millennium, with bishopries as far away as India, Java (island), and China. ===Emergence of national Churches=== The question of Jesus's divinity was central to early Christians. A wide range of early writers, including Justin Martyr and Tertullian testify to belief that Jesus was God. At the same time, various Christian groups did not share that belief. The situation came to a head with the teaching of Arius, who brought large numbers of bishops and faithful to his belief that Jesus was a created being. The issue was settled by vote at the First Council of Nicaea, convened by Emperor Constantine I, where the teaching championed by Athanasius, trinitarianism, was enshrined as dogma (See Nicene Creed,Athanasian Creed). Although Constantine ordered all Arian books burned and Arius exiled, Arianism continued to exist and thrive in the empire for several decades, and among the Germanic tribes for almost two centuries, after the decision of the council. This was only the first of several ecumenical council for resolving doctrinal issues. These councils sought to unify Christianity, and were supported by the Byzantine Emperors in order to promote political stability. Some of the theological terminology of these councils may have been misunderstood by those Orthodox whose main language was Syriac, Armenian language, or Coptic language. As a result differences in later theological constructs lead these national branches of the church to break away from the rest, forming Oriental Churches, sometimes called the Monophysites. By the second millennium, Christianity had spread to most of the Western world, the Middle East, parts of Africa, and had made some small inroads into the Far East as well. For the most part it had remained fairly unified in its fundamental beliefs with major theological disagreements being resolved in council. But as the millennium approached, certain major differences in theology and practice became increasingly troublesome. The East-West Schism of 1054 split the Church into Western and Eastern churches: the Western church gradually consolidated under the central authority of Rome (''see'' Roman Catholic Church), while the Eastern church adopted the name "Orthodox" to emphasize their commitment to preserving the traditions of the church and resistance to change. This Eastern Church refused to be consolidated under a single bishop, as this was completely alien to the structure the church had hitherto enjoyed. The Eastern Church recognized the Patriarch of Constantinople as the "First among equals" of the numerous bishops in charge of its Autocephaly churches (''see'' Eastern Orthodoxy). In the European Reformation of the 1500s, Protestantism and numerous similar churches renounced allegiance to Rome in objection to perceived abuses of growing Papal authority and to perceived doctrinal error and novelty in Rome. Key questions in the Reformation controversy are summed up in the famous five solas: ''Sola Scriptura'' (Scripture alone—does the church's authority derive solely from correctly interpreting the Scriptures, or does it have a separate authority?), ''Sola Fide'' (Faith alone—is a person saved through faith in Christ alone, or do the Church, good works and the sacraments contribute?), ''Sola Gratia'' (Grace alone—is a person's salvation purely and exclusively due to God's unmerited grace, or do individual works make a contribution?), ''Solus Christus'' (Christ alone—is Jesus the only mediator between humanity and God, or do the Church and its priests play a part?) and ''Soli Deo Gloria'' (Glory to God alone—does all of the glory for humanity's salvation belong to God, or are the Church and its priests eligible for a part?). The Reformation sparked a vigorous struggle for the hearts and minds of Europeans. Disputes between Roman Catholics and Protestants sparked persecution and were caught up in various wars, both civil and foreign. Roman Catholicism and Protestantism arrived in North America (and later Australasia) with European settlement. Lacking any central authority in either Rome or national governments, Protestants worshipped in hundreds, and later thousands, of independent denominations. Protestantism was taken to South America and Africa by European colonists, especially in the 16th century to 19th century centuries. Orthodoxy first arrived in North America via Russian settlers in the Alaskan region in the 18th century; they came to North America from Europe in much greater numbers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. (See also Restorationism.) In the 19th century and 20th century many Christian-oriented nations, especially in Western Europe, became more secular. Most communist states were governed by avowed atheisms, though only Albania was officially atheistic. Adherents to Fundamentalist Christianity, particularly in the United States, also perceived threats from new theories about the age of the Earth and the evolution of life. [[Image:Christian-lineage.png|framed|center|Differing interpretations of the Bible and other forces led to schisms in Christianity over the millennia, but all branches trace their roots to early Christianity.]] ''For more, see:'' * History of Christianity * Missionarys * History of Christian Missions ==Christianity today== [[Image:Wooden_cross.jpg|right|thumb|140px|The Christian cross and its many variations are traditional Christian symbols.]] According to adherents.com [http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html] Christianity is the world's most widely practiced religion, with 2.1 billion adherents, followed by Islam with 1.3 billion, Irreligion with 1.1 billion, Hinduism with 900 million, Chinese_traditional_religion with 394 million, Buddhism with 376 million, etc. Christianity has many branches, including 1.1 billion Roman Catholic Church, 510 million Protestantism in a number of traditions, 216 million Orthodox Christianity, 84 million Anglicanism, 158 million Independents (unaffiliated with the major streams of Christianity), and 31.7 million "marginals" (Jehovah's Witnesses, Latter Day Saints (Mormons), etc., these last being denominations which describe themselves as Christian but are not standardly recognized as such by other denominations due to their unorthodox teachings. Although Christianity is the largest religion in the world and there are massive missionary efforts under way, its overall rate of growth is slower than that of some other faiths and of the world population as a whole. While the population of the world grows at roughly 1.25% per year, Christianity is growing at about 1.12% per year. Not all people identified as Christians accept all, or even most, of the theological positions held by their particular churches. Like the Jews, Christians in the West were greatly affected by The Age of Enlightenment in the late 17th century and early 18th century centuries. Perhaps the most significant change for them was total or effective separation of church and state, thus ending the state religion Christianity that existed in so many European countries. Now one could be a free member of society and disagree with one's church on various issues, and one could even be free to leave the church altogether. Many did leave, developing belief systems such as Deism, Unitarianism, and Universalism, or becoming Atheism, Agnosticism, or Humanism. Others created liberal wings of Protestant Christian theology. Modernist Christianity in the late 19th century encouraged new forms of thought and expression that did not follow traditional lines. Reaction to the Enlightenment and Modernism triggered the development of literally thousands of Christian Protestant denominations, Roman Catholic traditionalism splinter groups of the Roman Catholic Church that do not recognize the legitimacy of many reforms the Roman Catholic Church has undertaken, and the growth of hundreds of fundamentalist Christianity groups that interpret the entire Bible in a characteristically literal fashion. In the United States and Europe, liberalism also led to increased secularism. Some Christians have long since stopped participating in traditional religious duties, attending churches only on a few particular holy days per year or not at all. Many of them recall having highly religious grandparents, but grew up in homes where Christian theology was no longer a priority. They have developed ambivalent feelings towards their religious duties. On the one hand they cling to their traditions for identity reasons; on the other hand, the influence of the secular Western mentality, the demands of daily life, and peer pressure tear them away from traditional Christianity. Marriage between Christians of different denominations, or between a Christian and a non-Christian, was once taboo, but has become commonplace. Some traditionally Roman Catholic countries have largely become agnostic. Liberal Christianity grew rapidly during the early 20th century in Europe and North America, by the 1960s gaining the leadership of many of the larger US and Canadian denominations. However, this trend has reversed. At the turn of the 21st century, though secular society tends to consider the more accommodating liberals as the representatives and spokesmen of Christianity, the "mainline" liberal churches are shrinking. This is partly due to a loss of evangelistic zeal, partly due to drift of their membership to conservative denominations, and partly due to the failure of one generation to pass on Christianity to the next. Among the larger Protestant denominations in the United States, only the conservative Southern Baptist Convention is growing. :Category:Evangelical parachurch organisations have grown rapidly in the last half of the 20th century. The liberal Christian Century magazine has shrunk, while being replaced by its challenger, the rapidly growing evangelical Christianity Today. The Enlightenment had much less impact on the Eastern Churches of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy. Having to face a much more hostile secular society, especially during the rise of Communism, the church clung to ancient beliefs, even as its membership eroded. Today in Eastern Europe and Russia, a renewing trend is taking place. After decades of communist-instated atheism, there is widespread interest in Christianity, as well as religion in general. Many Orthodox churches and monasteries are being rebuilt and restored, filled beyond capacity; Protestants of many denominations are pouring in to evangelize and plant churches; and the Roman Catholic church is revealing once secret dioceses and undertaking other steps to support Roman Catholic churches more openly. In South America and Africa, Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity form rapidly growing movements that are increasingly sending missionary to Europe and North America. This is also true of Asia where many of the underground house churches intend to send hundreds of thousands of missionaries out over the next decade. As Modernism developed into Consumerism during the second half of the 20th century the Megachurch phenomenon developed – catering for skeptical non-Christians by providing "seeker sensitive" presentations of Christian belief. The Alpha Course can be viewed as an example one such presentation of Christianity. Since the development of Postmodernism with its rejection of universally accepted belief structures in favour of more personalized and experiential truth, organized Christianity has increasingly found itself at odds with the desire many people have to express faith and spirituality in a way that is authentic to them. What has thus far been known as the Emerging Church is a by-product of this trend, as many people who broadly accept Christianity seek to practice that faith while avoiding established Church institutions. Another reaction of some Christians to Postmodernism is the advent of what might be called Postmodern Christianity. A large and growing movement within the Christian church, especially in the West and most visible in the United States, is the Evangelical movement. Most mainstream Protestant denominations have a significantly active Evangelicalism minority, and, in some cases, a dominant majority (see Confessing Movement). Evangelicals are "trans-denominational" and are more willing to have formal and informal relationships with Evangelicals from outside their denomination than to have the same sort of relationship with non-Evangelicals within their denomination. Some Evangelicals have been schism within various church organisations, leaving to form their own denominations. More often they are forced out. It was only by dint of sheer determination that John Wesley, founder of Methodism, was able to remain an Anglican priest against intense opposition. His followers separated in America, and in England after his death. Some Evangelicals claim that their beliefs are no less than true Christianity itself and that those within the church who differ from them may not be true believers. This attitude has led to much disunity amongst churches, especially those with a large modernist influence. Evangelicals cannot be easily categorised, but almost all will believe in the necessity of a personal conversion and acceptance of Jesus as saviour and Lord, the eventual literal Parousia, a more conservative understanding of the Bible and a belief in the miraculous. There are many different types of Evangelicals including Dispensationalism, Reformed theology, Pentecostalism, Charismatic and Fundamentalist Christians. ''See:'' List of Christian denominations, Christianity: Denominations ==Doctrine== Christian Love is basic to many forms of Christianity (See main article Christian Love). Christians often view Christianity as the fulfilment and successor of Judaism, and Christianity carried forward much of the doctrine and many of the practices from the Judaism faith, including monotheism, the belief in a Messiah (or Christ from the Greek Χριστός ''Christós'', which means "anointed one"), certain forms of worship (such as prayer, and reading from religious texts), a priesthood (although most Protestants assert the Universal Priesthood of All Believers), and the idea that worship on Earth is modeled on worship in Heaven. The central belief of Christianity is that by faith in the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus, individuals are saved from death—both spirituality and physical—by redemption from their sins (i.e., faults, misdeeds, disobedience, rebellion against God). Through God's grace, by faith and repentance, men and women are reconciled to God through forgiveness and by sanctification or theosis to return to their place with God in Heaven. Crucial beliefs in Christian teaching are Jesus' incarnation, atonement, crucifixion, and resurrection from the dead to redeem humankind from sin and death; and the belief that the New Testament is a part of the Bible. Many Christians today (and traditionally even more) also hold to supersessionism. Supersessionism is the belief that the Jews' chosenness found its ultimate fulfillment through the message of Jesus: Jews who remain non-Christian are no longer considered to be chosen, since they reject Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God. This position has been softened or even completely abrogated by some churches where Jews are recognized to have a special status due to their covenant with God, so that this continues to be an area of on-going dispute among Christians. The emphasis on God giving his son, or the Son (who is God) coming down to earth for the sake of humanity, is an essential difference between Christianity and most other religions, where the emphasis is instead placed solely on humans working for salvation. The most uniform and broadly accepted tradition of doctrine, with the longest continuous representation, repeatedly reaffirmed by official Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant definitions (although not without dissent, as noted below) asserts that specific beliefs are essential to Christianity, including but not limited to: * God is a Trinity, the single eternal being existing in three persons: Father, Son (Divine Logos, incarnated as Jesus Christ), and Holy Spirit. * Jesus is both fully God and fully human, two "natures" in one person. * Mary, the mother of Jesus, bore in her womb and gave birth to the Son of God (who is, himself, likewise God), who although eternally existent was formed in her womb by the Spirit of God. From her humanity he received in his person a human intellect and will, and all else that a child would naturally receive from its mother. * Jesus is the Messiah hoped for by the Jews, the heir to the throne of David. He reigns at the right hand of the Father with all authority and power forevermore. He is the hope of all mankind, their advocate and judge. Until he returns at the end of the world, the Church has the authority and obligation to preach the Gospel and to gather new disciples. * Jesus was innocent of any sin. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, believers are forgiven of sins and reconciled to God. Although virtually all Christians agree on this, there are a variety of views on the significance of Jesus' resurrection. Believers are baptized into the resurrection and new life (or death in some groups) of Christ. Through faith, they live by the promise of resurrection from death to everlasting life through Christ. The Holy Spirit is sent to them by Christ, to bring hope and lead mankind into true knowledge of God and His purposes, and help them grow in holiness. * Jesus will return personally, and bodily, to judge all mankind and receive the faithful to himself, so they will live forever in the intimate presence of God. * Some Christians, particularly in the West, refer to the Bible as the "Word of God." Other Christians, particularly in the Eastern Christianity, believe that Jesus alone is the Logos, and see Scripture as an authoritative book, Biblical inspiration by God but written by men. As a result of these differing views, many Christians disagree to varying degrees about how accurate the Bible is and how it should be interpreted. These beliefs are stated in a number of creeds, of which the most important and widely used are probably the Apostles Creed and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, commonly known as the Nicene Creed. These statements of belief were written in the first few centuries after Christ to reject certain heresy. Although there are arguments about specific parts of these creeds, they are still used by mainstream Christians to state their basic beliefs. ''(See also: Athanasian Creed)'' Christianity is considered by mainstream Christians to be the continuation or fulfillment of the Judaism. However, many self-proclaimed Christian organizations throughout history have had varying ideas about the basic tenets of the Christian faith, from ancient sects such as Arianism and Gnosticism to modern groups who have different understandings of fundamental Christian ideas. Some of these groups are the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have a different theological understanding of Jesus, God and the Bible; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who believe that in 1829 God restored the apostolic priesthood to their leader Joseph Smith, Jr., making possible continuing revelation (including additional teachings and scripture), and the Unification Church. While various groups may differ in their approach to the specifics of Christ's role, ministry, and nature (some calling him a god or Gods, and others a man), Christ is generally assumed to have cosmic importance. Some of these groups number themselves among the Christian churches, or believe themselves to be the only true Christian church. Furthermore, present-day liberal Protestant Christians do not define Christianity as necessarily including belief in the deity of Jesus, the Virgin Birth, the Trinity, miracles, the resurrection, the ascension of Christ, or the personality or deity of the Holy Spirit. Liberals may or may not recommend belief in such things, but differentiate themselves from conservative Christians by defining as included within genuine Christianity anyone who explains their views or teachings principally by appeal to Jesus; for example, John 3:16. It is common for those who hold the more traditional tenets of faith described in the paragraph above to assert that some or all of these groups are not true Christians, principally because they feel that by denying fundamental teachings about the nature, actions and teachings of Jesus, such liberals are following a different person, or one of their own devising. Conversely, liberals are often feel that "traditional" Christians have been misled by political organizations spanning thousands of years, and follow dogma designed to assign power to certain institutions. ''Also see the Christian worldview.'' == Orthodoxy and heresy in Christianity == Orthodoxy, i.e., worshipping in harmony with beliefs traditionally established or otherwise interpreted as "correct beliefs," is of extreme importance in the larger branches of Christianity, and much time and energy has been dedicated to delineating what are called heresy, or unacceptable deviations from orthodox thought. Sanctions against heresy have included rebuke, withdrawing mutual recognition as Christians, and sometimes even death for minority individuals or parties, as well as the destruction of all writings associated with those disagreeing parties. The article on heresy gives a comprehensive discussion and list of what have been called heresies by the largest Christian branches. In modern times it is still common for minority Christian movements and individuals to hold beliefs that closely resemble these ancient heresies. But the majority Christian branches continue to view the ancient delineations as an important historical reference for orthodoxy. Heresy continues, though more peacefully than in the past, to be an important issue for many Christians. ==Excommunication== Excommunication is the formal act of the Church in recognizing that a person has removed him or herself from the practice of orthodox faith. It is important to note that people excommunicate themselves by their own actions; the Church merely affirms that fact formally with a declaration of excommunication. It effectively banishes a member of the Church from the communion of believers and the privileges of the Church. Excommunication is generally reserved for the most serious sins, including serious crimes, adultery, polygamy, homosexual conduct, apostasy, and teaching false doctrines. In the case of apostasy and false teaching, excommunication is often a last resort after repeated warnings. In some denominations it may be a final action, while in others it may be rescinded if certain conditions are met, such as the repentance of the excommunicated member. == Christianity's relationship with other faiths == In recent years, some have attempted to find commonality between the major religions. Muslims refer to adherents of most Abrahamic religions as People of the Book, "the Book" symbolizing divine scripture, such as the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an. Christians generally do not view themselves as part of an "Abrahamic religion," but view Abraham as an early figure of faith and recognize his attempt to offer up Isaac as a foreshadowing of God's offering of his Son, Jesus (Gen. 22:1-14; Heb. 11:17-19). Judaism sees Abraham as the founder of the people of Israel and the ancestor of their people. For more information on the relationship between Christianity and other world religions over the years, see Christianity and World Religions . === Christianity and Judaism === Since the Holocaust, there has been much to note in the way of dialogue between some Christians groups and Jews; the article on Christian-Jewish reconciliation studies this issue. Messianic Judaism refers to a group of evangelical Christian religious movements, self-identified as Jewish, who believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Contrary to Judaism, they are trinitarians, professing that Jesus is God, incarnate. Even though many Messianic Jews are ethnically Jewish, they are not considered part of the Jewish community by mainstream Jewish groups. They are not to be confused with the many Christian believers of Jewish ethnic background who are not members of these religious movements, but rather of regular Christian churches. ''For more, see:'' * Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity * Judeo-Christian * Christianity and anti-Semitism === The branches and boundaries of Christianity === The doctrines and practices of Christianity have been subject to a great deal of debate since the founding of Christianity. Over the years, many groups have traced their lineage to Jesus and claimed to be "true Christianity," despite enormous differences in doctrine and practice with the surviving mainstream Christian group. Some of the first examples of this were Marcionism, Arianism and Pelagianism within the first few centuries after Christ. This was followed by the founding of Islam, in which Muhammed claimed to be the prophetic successor to Jesus sent to reestablish God's true religion following the supposed corruption of the early church, and later by the East-West Schism between Eastern Orthodox (meaning 'true worship') and Catholic (which means "universal") Christianity. The Protestant Reformation led to the development of a great number of denominations with unique teachings and practices distinct from Catholicism and each other, including Lutherans, Quakers, and Mennonites. More recently, Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Latter Day Saints have claimed to be the restoration and fulfillment of Christ's original teachings, by correcting the perceived corruption of the church (see Great Apostasy), and claiming new revelation and new sacred texts. Some groups similarly claim that Christianity has been modified by the Church Fathers (see Authentic Matthew) and the Protestant Reformers. Some of these new teachings (such as Marcionism) were quickly suppressed as heresies. Others grew into accepted parts of the world-wide church (e.g., Lutherans), some rapidly left the confines of the Christian church altogether or never entered them, such as Islam, now established as one of the major world religions and yet others grew but remained on the edge of what is accepted (or not) as "Christian." All of these divisions were accompanied by a great deal of debate, claims of heresy by both sides, and at times, violence. Opinions differ widely as to what defines Christianity, how much variation is permitted within Christianity, and thus, which groups qualify as "Christian." As a result, the boundaries of exactly what comprises "Christianity" remain a subject of great dispute today. == Christianity and persecution == Christians have been both the victims and the perpetrators of persecution (see Persecution of Christians). Christian martyrs in the first three centuries were crucified in the same manner as Roman political prisoners or eaten by lions as a circus spectacle. They are recognized as martyrs because they preferred to die rather than renounce their Christian faith, which often included making a sacrifice or burning incense to a pagan deity. Some Roman emperors claimed to be gods and demanded corresponding sacrifices or incense as well. Many people have been persecuted, tortured, raped and killed in the Islamic world, Indian Subcontinent and the Far East because they have converted to Christianity. That is why people from that part of the world who have converted to Christianity have left to Europe, the United States, Canada and Australia, because their native third world countries have laws against Christian conversions. In spite of the widely held belief that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings, Christian adherents have at times persecuted, tortured, and killed others for refusing to believe in their type of Christianity. While most modern Christians would condemn such actions, they were carried out by people who were seen as mainstream Christians at the time. During the Crusades, Christian atrocities against Jews in German and Hungarian towns, later also in those of France and England, and in the massacres of non-combatants in Palestine and Syria initiated a tradition of Christian anti-Semitism, which was further bolstered by the blood libel cult, and continued into the 1500s by the Spanish Inquisition. The European colonization movement was endorsed by the mainstream European Christian churches. This endorsement supposedly "legitimized" the exploitation of the colonized lands by the European powers. This colonization led to the destruction of many cultural artifacts, particularly in South America related to the Tahuantinsuyu and Aztecs. Conflicts within Christianity itself have led to persecutions of one Christian group by another. Protestantism, Roman Catholic Church and other Christians have persecuted each other in the name of Jesus. In the second half of the 20th century the violent conflict between armed political groups among the Unionists (Ireland) and Irish nationalism communities in Northern Ireland carried a strong element of sectarianism between Protestants and Roman Catholics. The concept of ''religious tolerance'', that Christians in political authority should permit persons of differing faith to practice their own religions, has risen and fallen many times in history. At times, church leaders have considered tolerance itself to be a heresy. Modern Christianity appears, for the most part, to have adopted a position of tolerance. There are, however, exceptions such as American Christian Reconstructionism which, according to some observers, could pave the way for the persecution of dissenting faiths. This is related to the issues of ecumenism and religious pluralism. == Christian churches worldwide == There are List of Christian denominations practiced around the world today. For information about the various "super-bodies" of churches which many individual congregations or in some cases bishoprics of these churches associate under see full communion. The ancient Christian-Jewish nasrani tradition today survives in South India. == See also == * Assyrian Church of the East * Catholicism in China * Christian Arab * Christian art * Christian calendar * Christian emigration * Christian eschatology * Christian existential humanism * Christian materialism * Christian music * Christian mythology * Christian opposition to anti-Semitism * The stories of Christianity * Christian theological controversy * Christian views of women * Christian Symbolism * Christianity in China * Church websites * Crusade * Great Schism * History of Christianity * Homosexuality and Christianity * John 3:16 * List of Christians * List of Christian denominations * Palestinian Christian * Predestination * The Rise of Christianity (book) by Rodney Stark * Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy ==References== * ''The Story of Christianity'' by Justo L. Gonzalez (1984, 1985, 1999, ISBN 1565635221) * ''Christian Theology: An Introduction'' by Alister McGrath (ISBN 0631225285) * ''Christian Theology Reader'' by Alister McGrath (ISBN 063120637X) * ''Systematic Theology'', an Christian ecumenism trilogy by Thomas Oden ** Volume 1: ''The Living God'' (1992, ISBN 0060663634) ** Volume 2: ''The Word of Life'' (1992, ISBN 0060663642) ** Volume 3: ''Life in the Spirit'' (1994, ISBN 0060663626) == External links == ===Christian sites=== * [http://www.believerscafe.com/ Believerscafe] A large Christian resource site with over 30,000 pages of Christian Classics, Bible Dictionary, Bible versions, articles, devotions and downloads. * [http://catholicapologeticsofamerica.blogspot.com Catholic Apologetics of America] * [http://www.orthodoxinfo.com Eastern Orthodox Christian Information Center] * [http://www.carm.org Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry] - Christianity, Cults, and Other Religions * [http://www.ApologeticsCourses.Com Apologia] - Courses Christianity, Cults, and Other Religions * [http://www.Bible4U.Info Christian Faith] - Exhaustive Information About Christian Faith * [http://www.christiananswers.net ChristianAnswers.net] - In their words - "A site providing biblical answers to contemporary questions". * [http://www.gotquestions.org/Christianity.html What is Christianity and what do Christians believe?] * [http://ship-of-fools.com/ Ship of Fools] - ecumenical "magazine of Christian unrest". With large, lively [http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/ discussion boards.] * [http://givemeananswer.org/ Televised Debates] - "Give Me An Answer" open air debates are recorded on college campus across the United States. Students ask questions and Christian apologist and pastor Cliffe Knechtle gives answers with a biblical perspective. Also has discussion boards. * [http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ Apologetics Index] - Apologetics research resources on religious cults, sects, religions, doctrines, etc. * [http://www.mormon.org An authoritative website discussing basic beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.] * [http://www.catholic.tc The best of Christianity online] - This web site includes articles of Bible study, Sacraments, From Pastor, About the Parish, Missio Sui Iuris. free download our Catholic Mission TCI Newsletter. * [http://www.christian-thinktank.org Christian Thinktank] - Extensive, in-depth apologetics * [http://christians.port5.com Christians] - basic teachings of Christian faith * [http://www.religiousbook.net/Books/Online_books/Hs/What_Is_Christianity.html What Is Christianity?] Christianity implies, first of all, accepting and realizing the Teaching of God given by Him for the embodied people through Jesus Christ. ===General Online sources=== * [http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/index.htm ReligionFacts.com: Christianity] Fast facts, glossary, timeline, history, beliefs, texts, holidays, symbols, people, etc. * [http://www.religiousbook.net/Books/Online_books/Sh/Heart_19.html The Evolution of Christianity] History of Christianity Religion. ===Opposing viewpoints=== * [http://dmoz.org/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Opposing_Views/Christianity/ List of sites critical of Christianity] ===Christian wikis=== * [http://www.wikichristian.org Wikichristian], a free Christian Encyclopedia, Public Domain Library for all Christian works and a wiki community for all believers. * [http://www.theopedia.com/Main_Page Theopedia], a conservative Calvinist Christian wiki * [http://theconnexion.net/compass/index.php/Main_Page Compass], a wiki about what it means to follow Jesus Christ * [http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Main_Page OrthodoxWiki], a wiki about the Eastern Orthodox Christian denominations Christianity ga:Críostaíocht kw:Kristoneth li:Christendom ms:Nasarani zh-min-nan:Ki-tok-kàu nds:Christendoom simple:Christianity th:คริสต์ศาสนา vi:Kitô giáo
Christianity
----
Archived discussions Talk:Christianity/Archive_1
== The cross ==
Right now there is only one graphic in the article, a nice illustration of the ichthys fish, and no mention of the cross in the entire article. I suggest that if there is only to be one illustration in this article, that it be a cross, not the fish. Although I see no reason not to keep the fish as well.
According to tradition, the ichthys fish was pretty much just used as a secret code among the early church. It has not been in wide use, or even widely recognized among Christians, for most of church history. The recent resurgence of the the fish among Western (or at least American) Christians is something of a '90s fad. Somehow this fish meme got started, and it played to the religious right notion that Christians were being persecuted in secular culture, and thus became a popular fixture on bumper-stickers and jewelry, much like the whole WWJD? thing. The fish hasn't disappeared and isn't likely to anytime soon, but it is already much less prominent than it was in the height of fish-promotion.
By contrast, the cross was established very early in the Catholic church as a Christian symbol, and among virtually all of the three major branches of the church mentioned in the article--Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants,--the cross is recognized as the symbol of the Christian church. While there are many variations of the Christian cross preferred by various groups, a plain cross consisting of a vertical bar and a shorter horizontal bar is universally recognized as a Christian symbol. There are a few groups, mostly on the fringes like the Mormons and Moonies, that do not typically use the cross.
All that to say that I think there should be a graphic of a cross and some mention of the symbol in the text of the article.
User:141.158.238.201 22:17, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
: It took less than a month, but I'm firing in the requested picture - comments/suggestions welcome. I've used elements of ...238.201's text for the caption. User:Krupo 19:57, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
While I would not agree entirely with the "christian right" notion above - maybe in America, but probably not in Europe, where the fish is recognised fairly universally as a Christian symbol, I do agree with the general argument above. Also, I think the shorter explnation on the fish which was in use a while ago was better and more to the point User:Refdoc 22:40, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
: The Christian Cross is certainly a much more widely used symbol of Christianity, both around the world and down through the centuries. It would be worth putting it in either instead of or in addition to the ichthus. User:Wesley 01:36, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::Agree. User:Hawstom 22:01, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So the photo's in, although I'm wondering how to make the layout look better. I tried putting the cross on the left and leaving the Ichtys on the right, but the cross then collided with the 'map' of branches. Any better ideas? :) User:Krupo 20:00, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
:I've shortened the cross caption slightly and moved the icthus picture down one paragraph. Is there any chance of making the cross picture a bit smaller? It'll probably look better that way! --User:Grutter 22:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:: Agreed, good edit, btw. Making it smaller is simple - just add 999px, where 999 is the desired width. I set it to 150px, which looks sort of okay, but the big gap caused by the contents sucked. I swapped the fish/cross in a preview, but that looked worse, so I stuck with the previous layout. 140px is probably as low as you can go before the text in the caption gets too jumbled up. The super-last-resort alternative of adding more text to fill up that big white gap became extremely tempting, so I added in a bit of material that helps bridge the intro into the next section. The intro was hashed out super-fast, help definitely appreciated. :) User:Krupo 20:15, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
:::Actually the Icthys is pre-christian, and was used by people and philosophers such as Pythagorus (who believed it to have mystical power). It owes its origin to a mathematical construction: take two circles whose centres are seperated by half the radius, the Icthys is the overlap plus the two "tails" of the circle upto the tangent to each circle parallel to the central line of intersection. This should be easy to see/ or visualise.
:::The mathematical ratio of the length of the icthys to its height as expressed by the pythagoreans was as the ratio of two whole numbers. The particular numbers in question happen ''entirely by coincidence'' (cough) to be the numbers involved in the story of the "feeding of the five thousand". This biblical tale can also be viewed as a simple pythagorean formula for the Icthys symbol.
:::This was reasonably well known at the time the New Testament was authored, and points to a deeper meaning to the tale for those in the know. See Mystery religion for details of these sorts of tales. --User:81.156.179.151 20:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
:::Actually, the cross is a pre-christian symbol as well. It occurs in many of the (then common) meditteranean Mystery Religions, for example, in the Osiris cult, it is the Ankh symbol.--User:81.156.179.151 20:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== 80.49.239.231's edits ==
An anon IP (User:80.41.239.231) is making a lot of edits to the article (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=80.41.239.231 80.41.231.239's contributions]). Can someone more knowledgable than me check them out?
Thanks, User:Bcorr|User talk:Bcorr 19:43, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
==Emergence of National Churches ==
Why does the hard fact part of this article keep getting modified (that there was an election, that there was conflict), but no one seems fit to edit the poor grammar and logical flow of the rest of it? Are some simple facts to hard to handle they need multiple revisions, yet good grammar and article quality don't deserve a little attention? :Probably because the misrepresentation of the current text is so great. (I don't know what it has been replaced with, other than the one time I edited it.) As the text now reads, it sounds as though nobody thought that Jesus was divine, but Constantine made them have a vote on it and *POOF*, he became divine. That representation of the facts is very much leaning toward the atheist/skeptical viewpoint. ::The problem is, there was very much a disagreement about the nature of Christ's divinity. One faction, led by Athanasius, or Saint Athanasius as the Catholic Church now knows him, succeeded in that election. So in fact, yes, this was a seminal moment. And in fact, both parties in the disagreement were self styled Christians- despite the question of Jesus' divinity. Therefore at that juncture Christianity took a defining turn. I don't think it is honest to gloss over that. And I think, if anything, Christianity should be honest. :How's this for an alternative? ::In the early years of Christianity there was a dispute about the nature of Jesus, whether he was just a man (opinion put forward by Arianism, among others) or whether he was divine (opinion put forward by Alexander of Alexandria, among others). The issue was settled by vote at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. :The comment about "paving the way for the divine right of the Catholic Church" is POV and offensive, and IMO adds nothing to the article. Catholicism and Orthodoxy remained united for 700 years after that moment. User:Mpolo 09:10, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC) :: It's hardly POV Mpolo. Do a little research. Certainly the Catholic Church has done a lot of things it currently may not be proud of, and there is no point in concealing yet one more facet of that history. ::: Could someone explain exactly what the "divine right of the Catholic Church" is? Further, it is very POV that the Church "took a turn" at the Council of Nicaea. The supporters of Athanasius and of Arius each accused the others of changing Christian doctrine by affirming or denying Jesus' divinity. To state that this was a change is to unilaterally uphold the Arian POV. User:Wesley 04:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::: In sum; before Nicaea, there were Christians who were Trinitarian and Christians who were not. They disagreed on the divinity question. After the election one side, Arius's side, was eradicated and the disagreeing views, and all written records, were burned, exhiled, etc. This established the subsequent tone for the succeeding centuries, whereby trinitarianism was dominant. It is therefore revisinistic to claim that there was no determination here. ::::: Sorry, but your history seems to be incomplete. Far from being eradicated, Arianism actually dominated much of Christianity during the fourth century. Athanasius was banished from Alexandria at least five different times, perhaps as many as seven times, because of his opposition to Arianism. (He was also tried for murder, but exonerated when the supposed victim appeared at trial to testify on his behalf.) Certainly there were Arians before Nicaea, but it's debatable whether there were Arians prior to the fourth century. Arius himself didn't start teaching his view until I think around 309 or so; it spread quickly partly because he was also skilled at writing catchy tunes that reflected his theology. So it's not at all clear that there was a big ''change'' at the Council of Nicaea, even if it was deterministic in the sense of fending of both Arius and other future innovations in theology. User:Wesley 17:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::: That's like saying that after 9/11, Osama has been running free- even though we all know the U.S. has been doing what it can to get rid of him. There were two basic things that came from the first council of Nicaea- setting the date for Easter (yawn), and basically excommunication/exhiling/banning Arius and his followers- why? Because their ideas were a greater threat to the goals of Constantine and Athanasius/the Early Catholic Church than any other things out there. Sorry, I don't quite follow your analogy to Osama bin Laden. Constantine's main objective in calling the council was to promote or attain unity among the Christians. Some historians think he actually favored the Arians before the council, but let the bishops decide and then went with their decision. Athanasius was trying to defend the Christian faith as he understood it from what he believed was a grave error. Incidentally, Athanasius himself was only a deacon at the Council of Nicaea and so didn't have a vote, although he was present as assistant to the Patriarch of Alexandria and I think was allowed to speak there. He had been opposing Arius for some time prior to the council, since both were from Egypt. He was by no means the only vocal opponent of Arius at the council. User:Wesley \ Getting back to the point, can we agree that the Arians and Orthodox both thought they were espousing the 'original' Christianity, and each accused the other of inventing a new doctrine regarding Jesus Christ? User:Wesley 17:50, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC) Reaffirm? So America reaffirmed that Bush should stay in office? User:24.176.6.165 17:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::"decided that Jesus was always/is God " This is the primary statement of the Council of Nicaea. There was debate about whether God exhisted before Christ, etc. The Council resolved that Jesus is and always had been God. That is in fact the statement of the Council, the result of the Council, and it should be recorded rather than all this pussyfooting around the subject. This statement alone accounts for so much subsequent history it is negligent to omit it. User:24.176.6.165 17:59, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::The problem is that, as you have stated it, this can be interpreted as the thesis of a certain book of pseudo-history called The Da Vinci Code. This is not the thesis of serious scholars of Church history (or very few scholars of Church history). Arius's teaching was something ''new''. It's not that the Christians were divided from day one on this issue, and the council "decided it". The vast majority were with the "is God" viewpoint, until Arius started spreading his doctrine, starting between 315 and 317. (Arius didn't work in a vacuum, of course. The school of Antioch was tending in that direction even with its founder Lucian of Antioch, who some scholars see as the true father of Arianism. He saw his conclusions as coming directly out of the Gospel, of course.) But the theory was largely limited to that city until Arius' efforts. At the moment the Council was held, there was considerable discussion, and even a large number of bishops supporting the Arian view, but that division only dates from less than forty years previous to the council. The statement you want to put in could easily be interpreted to mean that "no one thought that Jesus was God, but the Council had a vote and imposed that belief", as Dan Brown would have us believe. This is simply false. User:Mpolo 18:49, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC) ::::Although I have heard of the The Davinci Code I have never actually read it. However, the writings of Athanasius and others can be found on the Writings of the Church Father's website and clearly demonstrates a very meaningful discourse. Mpolo, you are making straw man arguments (the opposite argument in an extreme case is false, therefore your entire argument is false; for example, there are Democrats who have been members of the KKK, therefore all Democrats are racist) and diminishing the topic. There is a crucial point here that is very pivotal and it has demonstrated itself in the response by various non-Catholic/Orthodox religions from Islam to Mormonism to many flavors of Protestantism regarding this very debate. User:24.176.6.165 20:51, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::::My point is that the ''way'' this is being stated implies a state of affairs that isn't true. Yes, there was a lot of discussion on the issue. However, the discussion stemmed from the last 40-50 years before the council (one could argue that the opinion existed but was never formalized, but that argument remains speculation, since we don't have any documents to back that up). That's why the wording "reaffirmed" is better. We can and should make it clear that there was a division. (Which, by the way, didn't end with the vote of the council, as some of those who have supported your wording in the past might argue.) What we can't do is pretend that there is no sign of unity on the issue before Arius. I'll try to think up an alternative formulation to satisfy both sides here. User:Mpolo 08:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) ::::::The reaffirm implies that the Trinity / both God and man in past present and future dualism was in place before 40-50 years beforehand; however, that theory was posited by Athanasius in an attempt to solve the conundrum. Do we have any non-biased sources that support this, that have not been tainted by the Church, that support the Trinitarian concept before 250 AD? Even 1 John 5:7/1 John 5:8 has been a forgery conducted to support the Trinitarian concept added later on; we need some unbiased evidence that it was there beforehand- and I don't think the Catholic Church will be the source of such an unbiased document, intrinsically. User:24.176.6.165 14:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) === Several references to early trinitarianism === (Back to the left) Here are several references: * Didache 7:1 (dates from about AD 70): "After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" : Although Didache mentions them separately there is no indication that he is stating that Jesus is God; in fact, quite the opposite; does one say 'pay your bill to AT&T, Bell South, and Ma Bell?' No, it would be illogical to write the same concept three times unless you were trying to make a point. Unless Didache were in fact making that singular point, the statement undermines rather than supports a mainstream concept that Jesus is and always had been God. User:24.176.6.165 18:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) * Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110) : "[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" : From the Wikipedia on Ignatius: Nowadays only the shorter variants of those seven letters are thought to be genuine writings of Ignatius. Their longer variants are thought to be emendations from the fifth century, created to postumously enlist Ignatius as an unwitting witness into certain theological fights of that age, while the other letters bearing his name, and the purported eye-witness account of his martyrdom, are thought to be pure forgeries from around the same time. User:24.176.6.165 * Justin Martyr (AD 151): "We will prove that we worship him reasonably, for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things, but they are ignorant of the Mystery which lies therein" : Second is hardly identical. User:24.176.6.165 * Athenagorus (AD 177): "The Son of God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by ‘the Son,’ I will tell you briefly: He is the first-begotten of the Father, not as having been produced, for from the beginning God had the Word in himself, God being eternal mind and eternally rational, but as coming forth [from the Father] to be the model and energizing force of all material things" * Theophius (AD 180): "It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be everywhere, but also to see and hear all, for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his Wisdom" * Ireneus (AD 189): "For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, the Father Almighty . . . and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit." : This doesn't state that Jesus is and always had been God. Further, one of Ireneus' books is 'On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis', demonstrating an early mainstream debate on Christ's divinity. User:24.176.6.165 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) * Tertullian (AD 216): "Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" : Tertullian was one Partisan in a spiritual debate against Marchion; this is more of the same sort of thing we see around the time of Nicaea; and Tertullian is one side. This hardly counts as evidence that there was a universal Christian understanding of the trinity, instead it supports the idea that the debate went a lot earlier than 50 years before Nicaea, to at least as you point out, 216. See the Tertullian Project at [http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-39.htm#P9237_2537879] for an example. User:24.176.6.165 * More from Tertullian: "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of Being, not singularity of number" * Hippolytus (228): "The Word alone of this God is from God himself, wherefore also the Word is God, being the Being of God. Now the world was made from nothing, wherefore it is not God" : Here we have an example of someone stating that the Spiritual transcends the temporal; there is not explicit statement that Jesus is and always was God. User:24.176.6.165 * Origen (225): "No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word, the Wisdom, was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however, that there was never a time when he did not exist, is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words ‘when’ and ‘never’ are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity" : This does not say that Origen states the 'the Son is God' - what it says is that the discussion of these divine concepts transcends time- which it may well; however, one could also argue that the ten commandments transcend time as well. User:24.176.6.165 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) * More Origen: "For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages" : Again, this is a statement that the spiritual concepts transcend time; they do not state that Jesus is and always was God. User:24.176.6.165 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) * Novatian (235): "For Scripture announces Christ is also God, as it announces God himself is man. It has described Jesus Christ to be man, as it has also described Christ the Lord to be God. Because it does not set forth him to be the Son of God only, but also the Son of Man; nor does it only say, the Son of Man, but it has also been accustomed to speak of him as the Son of God. So that being of both, he is both, lest if he should be one only, he could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed to be a man who is of man, so the same nature prescribes also that he must be believed to be God who is of God . . . Let them, therefore, who read that Jesus Christ the Son of Man is man, read also that this same Jesus is called also God and the Son of God" : Novatian sounds very odd and one may wonder about how mainstream were his views: see the Catholic Encyclopedia on Novation at [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm]. User:24.176.6.165 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) * Pope Dionysius (262): "Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were—I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist, and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd" : Unfortunately as I said Pope Dionysius is part of the Catholic Church, by definition, and had something to gain/ was biased. User:24.176.6.165 * More Pope Dionysius: "Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus, his Son, and in the Holy Spirit and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’" : Gregory is more recent and about the same timeframe as the early Arian movements. User:24.176.6.165 * Gregory Thaumaturgus (265): "There is one God . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity nor anything caused to be brought about, as if at some former period it was non-existent and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but, without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" So where is your evidence that Arius' doctrine predates him and Lucian of Antioch? (Note that I included quotes from Tertullian, a Montanist, Hippolytus, an anti-Pope, and Origen, whom the Catholic Church has never considered a saint, though I think the Orthodox do.) -- User:Mpolo 15:18, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) : Clearly as many of your example's primary writings centered around debates about the divinity of Jesus Christ, there is no demonstrable evidence that early Christians were uniform in believing in the Jesus is and always was God concept. There was in fact an ongoing debate that far preceded Arius and his teacher. User:24.176.6.165 18:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::This argument is really getting pointless. You have a point of view for which you can present no evidence, and have essentially said that anyone who is Catholic will be rejected out of hand, and at the same time reject anyone who is not Catholic (Novatian was an antipope) out of hand as non-mainstream. ::I have admitted that there was discussion. The witness of a wide range of writers though, is meant to show "consensus". The First Council of Nicaea did not represent a break with tradition, but rather confirmed the belief of the majority of early witnesses. Perhaps "reaffirm" is the wrong word, though, as it might imply that there was no discussion at all before Arius. Let me try a more long-winded, but hopefully more accurate phrasing: :::The question of Jesus's divinity was central to early Christians. A wide range of early writers, including Justin Martyr and Tertullian testify to belief that Jesus was God, or that he was second only to God the Father. At the same time, various groups arose that denied this teaching. The situation came to a head with the teaching of Arius, who brought large numbers of bishops and faithful to his belief that Jesus was a created being. The issue was settled by vote at the First Council of Nicaea, where the teaching later championed by Athanasius was enshrined as dogma. Arianism continued to exist for several decades after the decision of the council. ::Is that acceptable? We ought to include the name of at least one pre-Arian Christological heresy that denies the divinity of Christ (Marcionism was more the relation between Old and New Testaments, not denying the divinity of Christ at all, making him the son of the "good God" of the New Testament.) User:Mpolo 18:56, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC) :: I'd go far that one. User:24.176.6.165 19:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::: My only quibble is that it survived for several decades within the Byzantine Empire as you said, but until at least the fifth or sixth century among some European tribes who had been evangelized by the Arians in the fourth century. If I remember correctly, I think the First Council of Nicaea had only two dissenting votes out of over 300 bishops assembled; if that can be verified, I think it would be worth mentioning. User:Wesley 01:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::: That's fine if we can add in how clubs were employed at the Council of Nicaea. User:24.176.6.165 13:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) ===Very Early non-trinitarian reference === From the Gospel of Thomas. circa 50-90, unearthed in 1945: 104 [100]. They showed Jesus a piece of money and said to him: "The people who belong to Caesar ask us for taxes." He said to them: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's, and what is mine give me!" (Translation, Doresse, http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas100.html#) :Apparently a writer that preceded Athanasius' Canon, saw fit to mention Caesar, Jesus, and God as three separate entities. Now that additional bit disappeared from Athanasius' Trinitarian Canon. Interesting, No? == Cross == I think the insertion that :''and in some groups it is considered idolatry and not used in worship.'' Is worthy of inclusion somehow. Rather than simply deleting it, we should probably incorporate it. As for an image for Christianity, I think it is appropriate that there be a cross with an explanation in the caption that the cross is the generally recognized icon of Christianity, though some Christian groups don't identify with its use. In other words, we can include the NPOV-requisite disclaimer without getting into particulars of idolatry and worship. User:Hawstom 18:37, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) The only thing we have to do in my opinion is throw a bone to people who are going to be continually tempted to chip in their two cents because the cross is at the top of the page and they say, "Wait, that's not *my* Christianity!". Sheer entropy control is all I am after. If we can come up with something that will tend to stabilize the page, then we are making progress. I tried a non-specific reference that I thought might work. And I think maybe in this case a very brief, non-specific reference will satisfy people. If we say LDS and JW, then before we know it someone comes along and disagrees. The anon who made that edit will be back, and for two considerations, we need to be sure he is happy. 1) We want him as a Wikipedian. 2) We don't want to continually have to fight him. I don't want to be disagreeable, but could we do something a little more non-specific, but still accurate? User:Hawstom 20:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) :''restore caption for now -- it seems weird to refer to it as an icon for "Non-Christians"'' The non-Christian POV of the cross is quite important. The cross is the world symbol of Christianity even if I don't choose to use it in my worship and iconography. User:Hawstom 21:05, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) :IMHO, while the first points are true for some very small number of the world's Christians, noting it in the caption for a cross very much overemphasizes the matter. Can it be put somewhere in the ''text'' of the article? And as far as the second, while it is true, I would argue that it is not an ''essential'' characteristic of the cross, and that that should go into the article Christian cross if it's not there already. Thanks, User:Bcorr|User talk:Bcorr 21:07, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) What does a fellow ask himself when he visits that causes him to change the image caption? I think he says a few things: * "Why did they choose the cross as the main image for this page?" Anybody could ask this, and only a few months ago the icon was a fish. I believe it should be a cross, though perhaps a more generic two black lines instead of somebody's wooden cross. * "Why don't they say that some people don't use the cross as their personal icon of Christianity? My POV is not being represented here." We apparently have to address this or explain briefly why we are using the cross as the illustration for the article. (I again think we are right, but apparently we need to justify it.) * "I am going to explain here that some don't use the cross. After all, it says Edit this Page right there." I think we have to head this off. Now, I grant that 30 million known official non-users of the cross in LDS and JW are small compared to 2 billion Christians and 4 billion humans. Perhaps we should let this issue go for a while. But if it keeps popping up again, we are eventually going to be forced to throw that POV a bone in good Wikipedia fashion. Thinking now was the time to do it, I jumped in to try. But maybe I am premature. User:Hawstom 22:42, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC) I'm going to remove the part of that caption that talks about it being established as a Christian symbol in the fourth century based on these earlier references: * Paul says in I Corinthians that he will boast in nothing but the Cross (as opposed to his academic training, lineage, etc.); * The Epistle of Barnabas (first or second century) discusses the symbolism of the cross as found in the Old Testament, including Moses' outstretched arms during the Israelite's battle with the Amalekites. So the author of the epistle already saw it as a symbol of salvation and victory for God's people; * Ignatius of Antioch also writes about the cross as a symbol in his ''Epistle to the Trallians'', again no later than the second century. If these references are deemed insufficient, I'm confident I can find more. I can also look up more precise references and actual quotes of the three alluded to above if anyone wants those. I just don't have them in front of me right now. User:Wesley 16:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC) == Analitical materials == [http://www.religiousbook.net/Books/Online_books/Jt/Jesus_Teaching_0.html The Original Teaching of Jesus Christ] 1) "Christianity" in Wikipedia is not only christian's view. The article, which not contain different views, is non-enciclopedian, but only "confession". It is not good. 2) This material is not commercial information. 3) This book was written with blessing of God and under His guidance and contan deep knowledge. 4) I think you not read this book yet. Sorry for my bad english, Yours faithfully, Skywalker :I removed the "Original teaching" link, and wrote "v minority, POV link". I think that this is an accurate statement. To answer your points - 1. The article isn't written from a Christian's point of view - it's pretty neutral I think. 2. I didn't consider this when deleting the link. 3. That's your point of view - I'd seriously disagree with it, but again that isn't why I deleted it. 4. No, I haven't read all of it, but I have read a few of the pages. :The reason I deleted it is because the book makes unverifiable statements about what its author believes to be true. It does not attempt to reconstruct the orignal teaching of Jesus by any historical, textual criticism or scientific method that I can see. The text itself is probably more Gnostic than Christian, while the website on which it is published is syncreistic. I think that the purpose of the Christianity article should be to present information on the beliefs of mainstream and large minority groups, and on groups who disagree with these beliefs. I think that the current article does that, but I don't think that the addition of the link accurately represents what is believed about Christianity by any significant minority of people. Wikipedia is not a collection of websites - we'd soon be swamped if we included every website which discusses Chrisitanity. I think we can only choose the most appropriate to list, and I'm afraid that in my opinion, this website is not on that list. :Furthermore, I note that a link to the same book (on a different webiste) is also listed on the Jesus page - I certainly don't think it needs to be listed twice. I hope that this helps you understand why I deleted your link. If people disagree with me, then I'm sure they'll say and the link will be re-instated. --User:Grutter 10:10, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) --------------- I think the true christianity is not "crosses" or "fishes"... It is not symbols. I think the christianity doctrine is not only approved of God (Thrinity, Father, Son) existence... This is only packing of christianity... But this box is empty now. Where is content? True content of this theaching is LOVE, but people removed it (removed out of maind, hearts and encyclopedias ) :) I read this word in Biblie, but I can't find word "Love" in this article... Doctrine without Love is dead, this is only description of christianity "box". I think the spirit of this doctrine may be discribed here. Unfortunately, my english language is bad and can't write about it in article. Could you do it? ---- "listed twice" - You are right, this is my mistake. Yours faithfully, Skywalker == Lack of balance == This article is generally good but one-sided. I believe that there should be a section on criticism of Christianity, including some mention of the mass murder and cultural destruction that it has wrought over the past two thousand years. What do others think? User:Shorne 17:08, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC) : Done and done. See Christianity#Christianity_and_persecution, and Christianity_and_World_Religions. The article Roman_Catholic_Church has a section too. Having said all that, a link to the Crusades would be handy - that's been added too. Wiki's got it. User:Krupo 20:12, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC) == Christian or Christian? == So what is an adherent? An editor just chaned adherent to claimant. While making the case ambiguous (claiming what?), the debate goes, what makes someone Christian? Mostly it comes from the Christian belief that a person can belong to only one religion. I personally belong to four religions. If someone says that they are a Christian does that make them one? I think the question is complicated by the fact that different religions retain membership in different ways. For instance, Jews are Jews only if they are a convert or have Jewish mother. The ambiguousness comes to a head when we add all the Christian denominations. 70% of Americans consider themselves born-again Christians, just because they are not babtised and don't attend Church who are you to say they aren't Christians? --User:Sunborn 20:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) Leave it as adherent. More standard for this type of usage, I say. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 20:38, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) :''Claimant'' may not be the best word, but ''adherent'' is a distortion. The Roman Catholic Church, to which most Christians belong, keeps people on the books once they're listed as Catholics and is generally quite obstructive about removing their names when asked to do so. Hundreds of millions of "Catholics" never go to a church or otherwise practise Christianity; many of them are adherents of another religion or atheists. I very much doubt whether there is any basis to the claim that two billion people in the world actually believe in the dogma of any variety of Christianity. User:Shorne 20:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Yeah, you may be right, but I think that the estimates used were from Census which would be more accurate. The problem of maintaining internal lists is also seen in Mormonism and Bahai. So I magine that these things were considered. --User:Sunborn The most credible numbers I've seen (overall) are at www.adherents.com. At least there they account for all people and make the numbers add up to 5 billion (or whatever :-) ). User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 21:41, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I cannot believe that these things were taken into account. Two billion is about 80% of the population of the world outside non-Soviet Asia. Do you honestly believe that that many people are Christians? User:Shorne 22:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::I had a look at www.adherents.com. Here's an example of the distortion that I mentioned: the first six presidents of the US were non-Christians, yet three of them are listed as Episcopalians. (Two of the others as Unitarians, the remaining one as being of "no specific denomination".) If this place doesn't compile accurate data on forty-odd individuals whose biographies are widely available, how reliable can it be on such matters as the religious affiliations of all the people in the world? User:Shorne 22:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Well, who are you going to cite as more reliable? I realize it is challenging, but is there a better answer other than original research? Also, it sounds like there is dispute about what the religion of a particular person (president) is. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 23:28, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::I don't have any research to cite. Being an atheist, I don't really care much about the relative popularity of various religions that are all wrong anyway. But that doesn't mean that the "research" of www.adherents.com is any good. Hell, it lists juche as a religion—the tenth largest in the world, no less—, when it's nothing but a political ideology. ::::I checked their "research" and found that a number of their sources go back to the ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', which does use church membership as its starting point. In other words, lots of people are counted as Catholics without even knowing it, merely because at some point their parents had them registered as such with a church. User:Shorne 01:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Um, that is a fallacy of small sample size. I will demonstraight. The first presidents are a special case as I listed above, people can be more than one religion. Many of the founding fathers of the united states were not christian, but actually Deism. This would not have looked so great in a land with many Christians so many still went to church and acted and called themselves Christians. The non-religion presidents were probably deists too. --User:Sunborn ::::Jefferson made no secret of being a non-Christian. "Episcopalian" Washington escorted his wife to church every week but stood outside the sanctuary and waited for her, so repugnant was Christianity to him. Two of the first six US presidents were Unitarians—an inoffensive way to say "atheists". It's not clear to me that these four, at any rate, called themselves Christians. User:Shorne 01:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::::As for the sample size, I agree that the methodologies will be different. But I think that there is enough evidence to cast doubt on the numbers posted at www.adherents.com, as I indicated above. User:Shorne 01:27, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) George_Washington#Religious_beliefs. ??? Can somebody do a better job than adherents.com? If so, cite them. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 23:31, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::Claimant versus Adherent- I prefer Adherent. To define a Christian as one who 'claims' to be a Christian (claimant) would of course, by simple logic, remove the deaf mutes. It would also remove people who do not communicate for the most part to others. However a large part of Christianity has been the Monastic movement, characterised by Silence, and Adherence to certain beliefs and ways (See Rules of St. Benedict). A Christian can be a Christian on a deserted island. User:24.176.6.165 == First statement in image caption == I think the first statement ''the cross is an ancient Christian symbol'' is POV. Jehovah's Witnesses and some historians don't believe that. See also Talk:Christian cross. User:Rantaro 03:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :You are correct that would make it POV. But are you disputing the meaning of ancient? What exactly don't you believe? User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 03:48, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::See Talk:Christian_cross#Moved_from_article. User:Rantaro 09:42, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) === Poll on image and caption === What do you propose would be the ideal: ::The ideal primary image for the article? User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom :::I can't think of a good reason why Wikipedia can't use a cross as the primary image for this article despite the fact I don't have one in my home. Christianity is iconized in the world with a cross, and that's just the way it is. I don't like the cross that is there right now. It looks too much like a Catholic believer's cross. I think a simple black painted cross like a small t without a tail would be perfect for Wikipedia. If I were to disregard tradition and world opinion, I might prefer a picture of a man in a white or red (blood-stained) robe with arms stretched down and out out and apparent nail prints in hands, feet, and wrists with clouds in the background representing the risen Lord of Christianity.User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 03:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::The ideal NPOV caption if the image ''must'' be a cross? User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom :::The cross is recognized across the world as a symbol of Christianity. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 03:46, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::oops, changed before reading talk, sorry guys. I didn't touch ancient and the edit was well summarized though. --User:Sunborn 04:02, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ''Most people think that the cross is an ancient symbol...'' What?!? Earlier on this page, I've quoted from St. Paul in the New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas, and Ignatius of Antioch as examples of early Christians using the cross as a symbol in their writings. Are these uses contested? How many more examples does it take? It seems easier to make the argument that Jesus never existed at all, than to make the argument that there weren't any Christians who wrote about the cross and what it symbolized. Someone please enlighten me. User:Wesley 04:17, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I think that the cross is the best symbol to use and that the caption should read something like "The cross is widely recognised as an ancient Christian symbol", etc. In addition to Wesley's quotes, the earliest image I've been able to find is from the grave of Rufinas and Irene (early 3rd century), although there is also the anti-Christian graffiti "Alexamenos worships his God", (late 2nd century) which shows a person with a donkey's head being crucified on a cross. I got this info from The Lion Handbook History of Christianity, but the images can be seen online at [http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/pictures/ChristianW.htm Bible Picture Gallery]. I don't think there can be any serious historical doubt that the cross is a very ancient Christian symbol. --User:Grutter 09:28, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that Jesus died on cross, but on stake. See Talk:Christian_cross#Moved_from_article. Then I think you understand this is POV. --User:Rantaro 09:52, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::The objections of the Jehovah's Witnesses to the cross as a valid symbol are quite rightly documented both on the Christian cross page and on the pages dealing specifically with Jehovah's Witnesses. However, the vast majority of people, both Christian and non-Christian, associate the cross with Christianity. The Jehovah's Witnesses were founded in the 1870's and only abandoned the use of the cross in 1936 (according to Wikipedia). The historical evidence that Wesley and I have cited shows that the cross was used early on as a symbol of Christianity, and so the statement "the cross is an ancient Christian symbol" is therefore factually accurate. I therefore think that removing the cross as the first symbol on the Christianity page is actually more POV than leaving it there. --User:Grutter 14:13, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::Any good Christain and non-Christian should know the fish was the first symbol of Christiandom. It was use in "Jesus's Lifetime" occording to biased sources. Also, it was found in a Christian grave circa 74AD. First no, primary yes. :: It might be possible for the JW's to insist that Jesus died on a stake, but that later Christians mistakenly thought he died on a cross. They already disagree with other assertions of the early church. So, saying the cross was used early on as a symbol of Christianity doesn't necessarily contradict the JW's, any more than saying that early Christians thought Jesus was God. JW's admit this, just say that they were wrong on this point, as far as I understand. See Great Apostasy for instance. User:Wesley 16:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) We need to stop arguing about the cross and make it look better. The Islam article is head and shoulders about this one in the aesthetic category. We need a simple two-tone computer-generated cross graphic and a Christianity series box like the Islam one. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 04:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Jesus as son of God == It says- "The vast majority of christians believe that Jesus is the son of God" All ''True'' christians believe that Jesus is the son of God. User:Nintendomon74 21:14, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC) :JW also believe that Jesus is the son of God. If your definition is right, JW are "True" Christians. User:Rantaro 00:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) : Then the question is, which Christians don't believe Jesus is the son of God, that causes the artical to say "The vast majority" instead of "All"? User:Wesley 16:22, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) :I don't know, but I'll bet this: Any Christians who say they don't believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God will probably also agree that nonetheless, "Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." In other words, I don't know of anyone who would come right out and claim that believing Jesus Christ is ''not'' the Son of God is their official Christian stance. User:Hawstom - User_talk:Hawstom 19:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) ::The statement above by Nintendomon74 is an example of the No true Scotsman fallacy; please see it from more information. User:Jayjg 04:37, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) :::While your comment is true, Jayjg, I made a non-fallacious statement. You may be a true scottsman and not put sugar on your porridge, but my statement refers to religious views. To be a Christian, you have to believe that Jesus is the son of God. User:Nintendomon74 16:43, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC) ::::Given the comments, unless someone can provide evidence that a group calling themselves Christian nonetheless deny that Jesus is the Son of God I think that we can alter the statement to "Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God." --User:Grutter 12:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Evolution vs. Creation == I've deleted this discussion, as it doesn't belong here and has been covered elsewhere. If you really care you can read it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Christianity&oldid=6515584 here] (but please don't edit it otherwise you'll remove any more recent changes). --User:Grutter 08:11, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) == Monotheistic vs Trinitarianism == Note: The "Monotheism" vs "Trinitarian" statements which were in the lead paragraph are contradictory. I realize that not everyone may see it this way. But these points are explained fully and more appropriately below under "Doctrines" For the sake of editorial accuracy, here is the secon