Talk:Christianity/Archive 61

Statement on "Christianity is the most persecuted religion...", Round 2
The original Dec 7 edit request resulted in 3 editors voting in favor of striking this statement, with no dissensions. It has since become clear that multiple editors disagree with the striking. Let's examine it here.

The original statement reads:

It contained three references: BBC News, National Post, and The Guardian. Two reasons were stated for the striking: (1) all three ostensibly reference a single report, and (2) said report is by the Bishop of Truro, and may either be WP:POV, or at least unscholarly.
 * Regarding (1): these articles actually cite multiple references: not just the Bishop of Truro report, but also Pew Research and CESNUR.
 * Regarding (2): Coverage of the report in multiple mainstream, reputable news sources, extensive factual documentation within the report itself, and the report's reliance on literally hundreds of (mostly) NPOV sources, is sufficient to convince me the report satisfies the requirements for NPOV and for scholarly work. In short, I believe the statement should be wholly reinstated as previously written and cited. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * On such a massive topic like Christianity there certainly should be academic sources to support any statement in the lead and to show WP:WEIGHT. I don't support including such a statement, especially in wikivoice, based on two news sources that cite the same report and one opinion (and thus unusable for factual statements) piece. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I also think it should be included. There are excellent secondary sources supporting it; we can hardly ask for better sources that BBC and The Guardian. Nowhere in WP:RS does it say all sources need to be academic. As I've already pointed out, there has not been one single argument against the inclusion that corresponds to any WP policy, just a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Again, it is a factual statement reported by several excellent sources. Having one short sentence in the lead on the situations of Christians around the world does not fail WP:WEIGHT in any way. Jeppiz (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

As it's now been almost a month, and no opposing views have been presented, I have implemented Jtrevor99's suggestion that the statement be wholly reinserted. It is a well-sourced claim and should not have been removed to begin with (WP:BRD applied) but enough about that. Jeppiz (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request: Error
There is an error in the Death and Afterlife section of this article. This article says that Orthodox Christian believe in purgatory. As an Orthodox Christian myself, I can assure you that we do not believe in purgatory. That is Catholic doctorine. I am not sure whether or not there are Protostant denominations which believe in purgatory, but us Orthodox certainly do not (this is the area where reference number 88 is posted) Cityrailsaints (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologetics section
The section on apologetics at the bottom of this article could be improved. As it stands the first few sentences are good, but after that it just lists a handful of haphazardly chosen contemporary apologists and arguments. I get that it's just a one paragraph overview, but I strongly believe that a knowledgeable editor could do a much better job of giving readers a sense for the content of Christian apologetics than the article currently does. Torin11 (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Torin11

I Concur. Also JESUS NEVER went to He'll after HIS Death & Before HE Resurrected❗ Sounds like Your misinformation is from some man made False religion PLEASE CORRECT THESE ERRORS. YOUNEED ONLY TO GET YOUR FACTS FROM THE INFALLIBLE INERRANT WORD OF GOD. HE AlWays has the Last WORD. Thank You in Advance for Your Expedient response to this Very Important Issue. Gianna Corleone (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Lazarus of Bethany and Raising of Lazarus
Hello all- I have recently made additions to these two pages concerning the atheist and agnostic perspective on the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead after four days lying dead in a tomb. Before I made my additions, the atheist/agnostic/etc perspective did not seem to be represented at all on those pages. I think more material is needed so that we can have a clear understanding the perspective of atheists/agnostics/etc on these issues. Of course it would seem obvious- "dead people don't resurrect man"- but I'm trying to find sourcable quotes about validity or impossibility of the Lazarus story of John 11 specifically from famous atheists/agnostics/etc like I found from Ingersoll. Geographyinitiative (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Truth about Christianity
There is a huge error in the page. Many people and people groups have created fellowship with their own varying rules, some of which are from and edited from the Bible. This doesn't make anyone a Christian, which is only attainable by obeying Jesus Christ, His teachings in the 4 Gospels. E.g. Jesus said many things which are absolute requirements to become His disciple, a Christian. Many of which are found in Luke 14, for example:

Luke 14:33 New International Version (NIV) 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

A disciple is an early word for a Christian, later on people started calling us Christians in Antioch.

Acts 11:25-27 New International Version (NIV)

25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Various doctrines, churches and fellowships exist perpetrating as Christians, while they do not even know what Jesus taught to begin with.

So to simplify, it's very due that Wikipedia's Christianity page is edited with this correct information to stop misleading people.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.50.245.67 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The content of Wikipedia articles depends on what reliable sources say. Your interpretation of (one version of) the Bible does not satisfy this requirement. HiLo48 (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2020
Truth about Christianity

Many people and people groups have created fellowship with their own varying rules, some of which are from and edited from the Bible. This doesn't make anyone a Christian, which is only attainable by obeying Jesus Christ, His teachings in the 4 Gospels. E.g. Jesus said many things which are absolute requirements to become His disciple, a Christian. Many of which are found in Luke 14, for example:

Luke 14:33 New International Version (NIV) 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

A disciple is an early word for a Christian, later on people started calling us Christians in Antioch.

Acts 11:25-27 New International Version (NIV)

25 Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, 26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Various doctrines, churches and fellowships exist perpetrating as Christians, while they do not even know what Jesus taught to begin with.

So to simplify, it's very due that Wikipedia's Christianity page is edited with this correct information to stop misleading people.

Thank you, and sorry for a bit longer post. Truthmustbetoldtoall (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * See answer above, we just reflect what reliable sources say. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Religion
Since true Christianity factually isn't a religion, the word "religion" when describing Christianity should be replaced with Faith. God doesn't want religion from us. He looks for our faith. CPayne1705 (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an awful lot of sources out there that describe it as a religion. Your thoughts on what your god wants or doesn't want don't really count for much here.HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I guarantee that any definition of faith you'd give would be classified by sociologists and such as either religion or at least a facet thereof.
 * You're taking a rather modern evangelical definition of Christianity as "true Christianity," using religion as if it means "organized religion" (a common mistake), and using Faith as a euphemism for religious belief. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2020
The section on Salvation says Matin Luther believed baptism was necessary for salvation. I am fairly confident this is not true. Rather, he believed and taught it was a means of grace by which people were saved but not that it was required to be saved. 107.12.190.130 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk | contribs) 15:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2020
The section on Salvation says Martin Luther believed baptism was necessary for salvation. I am fairly confident this is not true. Rather, he believed and taught it was a means of grace by which people were saved but not that it was required to be saved. Here is my reliable source. https://reformation500.wordpress.com/2012/11/25/martin-luthers-understanding-of-baptism/ 107.12.190.130 (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The tension between Luther's doctrines of sola fide (salvation by faith alone) and baptism is well-known and...complicated. See, for example, Pagan Servitude of the Church or this article: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/sola-fide-compromised-martin-luther-and-the-doctrine-of-baptism/. I think we also need to be careful with our wording: saying baptism "[is] necessary for salvation" and that it "confers salvation" are two different things.  I'm not an expert but I've always understood that he saw baptism as an act of public justification and repentance before God, and it was that, not the baptism itself, that the salvation came through.  It, and communion, also are the only two sacraments he recognized.  Better wording might be "...believed baptism was necessary for justification leading to salvation".  Anyone else? Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. In any case, blogs are not reliable sources. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020
"Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world, especially in the Middle-East, North Africa, East Asia, and South Asia.[17][18]"

This sentence should be removed. Neither Prince Charles or the right reverend whoever of England or the pope are authorities on anything. They are certainly not disinterested commentators on this subject, nor are the sources quoted. The governments in the nations listed are either 1) staunch allies of the US and Europe or 2) countries under invasion from NATO and Western forces. The idea that "Christians" are the most persecuted religious group is nothing but Western colonialist propaganda. The Saudis are, after all, rather indiscriminate in their persecution. Just ask the Yemenis whom the Saudis and the US are slaughtering. Do the Iranians who die indiscriminately from illegal US sanctions, ramped up during the corona outbreak, count among the "persecuted"? of course not. Do the millions of Muslims in Iraq alone who have died from Anglo-US actions over the last 30 years count among the "persecuted"? of course not.

Please remove this sentence as the imperialist colonialist crusading whiny garbage that it is. For a secular nation, persecution is wrong, period. Leaders don't use particular acts of persecution to drum up fake support for their warmongering crusading agendas. And, in case Prince Charles hasn't noticed, capitalist swine like him have been running this planet, into the ground, for 500 years now. 2603:3023:50A:7C00:9BC:301:1511:ED0E (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This was previously removed and reinstated, see this discussion. There was no consensus on whether it should be removed or included. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020
This article, unlike the article on Rastafari, does not mention gender roles at all. It is a significant omission. If you are providing context on a primarily Black religion's patriarchal gender roles, the same treatment should be given to other major religions. If anything, there should be at least a link to a page on gender in Christianity under "Influence on western culture". 2601:602:9B03:3EC0:145C:D66D:6F6A:1A44 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As the template clearly says, ""Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected". If you wish to suggest an addition, please provide a detailed suggestion using reliable sources to support the text. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Demographics of major traditions within Christianity (Pew Research Center, 2010 data)
None of these charts are synced. From Christiandom to Christianity by country to Christian population growth. Is there a way that all these charts to not record different answers if there all based on the same chart? Doremon764 (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Few grammar inconsistencies
- "....that other meanings..." doesn't make sense, either "that other meaning" or "those other meanings" would fit? Angus1986 (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "The Alexandrian interpretation, exemplified by Origen, tended to read Scripture allegorically, while the Antiochene interpretation adhered to the literal sense, holding that other meanings (called theoria) could only be accepted if based on the literal meaning."


 * It makes perfect sense. "the interpretation holds that x is the case". Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020
In the second sentence, please replace "messiah" with "Messiah". De-capitalized can carry figurative uses, such as a messiah complex, while capitalized specifically refers to the religious concept. 64.203.187.108 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, as this instance refers to Jesus. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 02:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Jewish Old Testament ?
"Describing Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John with the Jewish Old Testament as the gospel's respected background."

For the followers of Judaism the OT is referred to by other names (e.g. Torah) and, I believe, the New Testament was written by Jewish people who had not renounced their Judaism afaict. Therefore the New Testament by the same measure would be the Jewish New Testament. The point being that "Jewish" as a modifier to "Old Testament" doesn't seem quite right. fwiw. 52.119.125.128 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello. New sections go at the bottom.  In most cases, it'd be better to replace it with "Hebrew Bible," but the majority of the NT's authors were using the Septuagint which was in Greek and included a few extra books.  This article is also mentioning those books as used by Christianity, which is one of the few times that the phrase OT isn't inappropriate.
 * There's also the issue that any Jewish groups that did accept the NT were absorbed into what would become Christianity and after a couple of centuries no group that self-identified as Jewish accepted any Christian works (until the modern era and they are rejected from mainstream Judaism) -- so "Jewish New Testament" is potentially inappropriate.
 * I do think, however, that "Jewish Old Testament" is not the best phrasing, though I'm not yet caffeinated enough to think of an alternative. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020
it is the best re;igion that you can be in 41.80.97.72 (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

❌ It's not clear what change you propose other than an unsupported assertion. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

انتقاد از ادیان
The sections on the pages about religions should be removed because it is uns expert and may cause people to hate Wikipedia. Mehran Raeessi Fard (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

❌ Not a valid reason for removal. WP does not avoid topics because they may offend people. And if the article is "uns [sic] expert", please work to improve it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Decent into Hell
"Descent into Hell" should be excluded from the main points of Christianity, since it is not explicitly referenced in the Bible and is a highly contested factor of the faith. It should be removed, keeping the most essential parts: His death, resurrection, and ascension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.58.245 (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

❌, See and  and of course the Apostles' Creed: "descendit ad inferos". Martin of Sheffield (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Does not the Latin here mean descended below, or similar? Misty MH (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Types of Christianity should be acknowledged
My edit on 11/22/2020 was reverted because it was claimed that it is "controversial". No it's not. It's a fact: "Though most groups that call themselves Christian are monotheistic, there are several groups that are atheistic or agnostic." And scholars widely admit that Judaism or the Hebrew religion was not necessarily monotheistic. And Gnostic Christians had a whole other view of things. And there were a bunch of other groups in the first Centuries, as there are now. To erase these or similar facts isn't encyclopedic, it's bias. Not only are a number of Christians atheist, you can even find articles about atheist pastors/leaders who took over primarily-theist assemblies. Erasing facts because they are uncomfortable does not comport to being "controversial". Misty MH (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Christianity and Christian atheism are not equivalent. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion.
 * Christian atheists may beg to differ, and may believe that theirs is true Christianity. Misty MH (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Misty MH, you replaced sourced content with unsourced opinion, and that is a big no-no. Wikipedia build on reliable sources, not opinion, so the first step would be to present reliable sources (so not just any source) that support the change you want. Jeppiz (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not my opinion. It is fact. The very first sentence of this article: "Christianity is a monotheistic religion..." There is a reason Christianity and Christian atheism are different pages. Don't conflate the two. That said, there's no reason you can't link to Christian atheism under "See also". Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nideggen-St.Johannes Baptist249.JPG

The article must stop calling Christianity monotheistic
It is historical fact that Christianity has had any number of theist- and even atheist-doctrine. Calling Christianity monotheistic misrepresents these facts of history. Misty MH (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that say Christianity is not a monotheistic religion, to counter the reliable sources used in the article which state it is. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
This article as I checked was without infobox for a long time until one day sock user Eliko007 added infobox without any discussion or so. I am against adding infobox for for complex topic's, it can make even greater confusion, synthesis of published material and it is often under attacks and vandalism. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Note that the infobox was here before this; it was created by . Personally, I think using infoboxes in articles is useful and gives a brief summary for the relevant topics. This article on Christianity has 272,945 bytes, which makes it hard to get the quick information that readers are looking for. Also, the previous infoboxes did not lead to edit warring nor vandalism (some editors made some small changes but the article been stable since the infobox was added). I support restoring the template, and if there is any option that includes controversial information, it could be deleted or changed to obtain a consensus. Wareon (talk) 06:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I oppose; we already have a navigation template with plenty of info. The infobox, especially the mass of pictures, distracts from the essential info, while the info given in the infobox is simplistic and anecdotical. And the infobox is dubious; it was renamed a couple of years ago to Infobox Christian denomination. What's being used now is this older version. And no, it was not here before. And, oddly, the infobox "created" by GOLDIEM J at User:GOLDIEM J/sandbox is the "Infobox Christian denomination." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I’m against a new infobox. There could be various edit wars for which images are chosen as the main images to be shown in this new infobox. I think that the Latin cross should be the only main image that represents all of Christianity. There could also be edit wars over the various details that are mentioned in the infobox. I think that the “Part of a series on Christianity” infobox is sufficient as being the main source of info in an infobox type format in the lead. It has one main image of Christianity and it has links to the various main articles about Christianity. --TheG3NERAL John 3:16 (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the importance of this infobox ? Rantemario (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I regard Infoboxes generally as being sloppy, dangerous additions to articles at the best of times, and for a complex topic like this, quite unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think the infobox was appropriate because the content was too broad and ineffective at summarising such a diverse religion. That said, I did replace one image. I don't think it is particularly helpful and am not in favour of restoring it. --Hazhk (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on whether this Infobox should be included, or not. I'll just make three points:
 * everything associated with a controversial topic like Christianity is going to be controversial, and an Infobox in the article is not an exception. So the fact that there "could be edit wars" about it, is not a reason not to have one. Very likely there would be edit wars about it; so what? The question should be, "Does it improve the article?" not whether it will provoke edit wars, which should stop, and like any other content disagreement be replaced by discussion to seek consensus.
 * I've learned that the having Infoboxes in any articles is in itself a controversial issue. Comments like "Infoboxes generally [are] sloppy, dangerous additions to articles" are an example of that; they should be taken up at WT:Infobox or WT:WPINFOBOX, but they don't apply here. As long as consensus is that Infoboxes are sometimes acceptable, the merits or disadvantages of this one are what should be discussed here.
 * The point was made that an Infobox is not appropriate for a complex topic, but it's actually the other way round. It's for a simple topic, like this one, where an Infobox is not needed. If an infobox is ever needed (I take no position), then it is for a complex one like World War II, where it would make more sense.

There's no question that Christianity is a complex topic, and it's for editors here to try and achieve consensus here whether the topic should have an Infobox, applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and what would be best for the reader. Keep in mind also, that studies have shown that most viewers never read past the lead. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021
67.181.61.140 (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Hello, Wikipedia i´d like to edit page Christianity.
 * Given that the article is semi-protected, IP addresses (you) are not allowed to edit the article directly. You may make specific edit requests here at Talk - meaning change ____ to ____, and then an editor will decide to implement or not. David notMD (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Twassman &#91;Talk·Contribs&#93; 23:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Grammar error in first paragraph
"Christians remain persecuted in some regions the world" if missing an "of", should be "Christians remain persecuted in some regions of the world"
 * Thanks. I've just fixed it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

To do list
The part of this talk page: "add more references to assist with Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, as per request from User:Taxman on the talk page at Talk:Christianity/Archive 3#Request for references." References a user who never posted in that section of the archives. Something is wrong here. Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Lede mythology parity
thanks for saying it was a good faith edit, but why do you say its "not helpful"? See Hinduism vs Christianity vs Ancient Greek religion vs Judaism and see Ancient_Greek_religion vs Abrahamic_religions.

Its pretty standard for non-Western relgioins to include statements about the religions mythology and not Western religions. Is there some problem with referencing the religions mythology?

For other editors reading here was my proposed edit: "It encompasses the collection of beliefs, rituals, and mythology held by its adherents, known as Christians, who make up a majority of the population in 157 countries and territories" Bilto74811 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the Hinduism article says it has "textual sources which discuss" mythology, which isn't the same as saying that the mythology is part of the religion. The Islam article doesn't mention it (with Islamic mythology only as a "see also" link). Buddhism has a solitary mention halfway down the article. So I don't think the parity argument holds up. StAnselm (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I also don't see how the parity argument works. In addition to the above, I had a quick lock at Baháʼí Faith, Jainism, Sikhism and Zoroastrianism. No mythology in any of those ledes either. Jeppiz (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Hinduism page has it in the lede and the Buddhism has it in the article just not the lede as StAnselm points out.  The Baháʼí and Jainism page do not have it, the Sikhism and Zoroastrianism pages have it in multiple spots just not the lede.
 * The ancient Greek religion page has it in the lede.
 * Nowhere to be found in the Islam, Christianity, Judaism. Yes, Islam does not have it, I wasn't only going to add to Christianity, just starting here.
 * We have a page called Christian mythology so there is no question of whether mythology is part of Christianity or not.
 * So parity is important. Can I put it in the articel and just not the lede? Bilto74811 (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Christian mythology is already in the "see also" section. The lead of that article says that it is "associated with Christianity"; that is different to being an integral part of Christianity itself - so, no: it already has due weight in this article. StAnselm (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it is linked, but it is not mentioned in the article as it should be as many other religious articles do.
 * I dont know what your purpose is in bringing up the minutiae of wording on that page. Christian mythology is literally the myths found in the Christian Bible.
 * The term encompasses a broad variety of legends and stories, especially those considered sacred narratives. Mythological themes and elements occur throughout Christian literature, including recurring myths such as ascending to a mountain, the axis mundi, myths of combat, descent into the Underworld, accounts of a dying-and-rising god, flood stories, stories about the founding of a tribe or city, and myths about great heroes (or saints) of the past, paradises, and self-sacrifice.


 * Its of course a part of Christianity, its the sacred text in the Bible.
 * Excluding it from the entire article, with just a link at the end, absed on DUE is not a valid arugment. Exclusion from any part of the article is UNDUE.   You cant really think a link after the article is DUE weight.  Forget the lede, its literally not even mentioned in the article.  Bilto74811 (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * No, not WP:DUE. Besides, some arguments above come very close to CMT which as a WP:FRINGE theory (some historians say "conspiracy theory") has no place here. Jeppiz (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do tell, what part of that in any way came "very close" to CMT. Christ myth theory is obviously fringe.  That doesnt apply to anything but itself.  I never even mentioned CMT, youre just trying to argue against a strawman.
 * The myths in Christianity are considered myths and ahistorical, see the actual page Christian Mythology. There are a lot of myths listed there in the Bible.  Are you trying to suggest that the "Flood Myth is jsut a myth" is FRINGE?  No, its clear academic consensus.
 * Zero inclusion is not following WP:DUE, its elminiating informatiaon the two of you dislike, which is UNDUE Bilto74811 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course Noah's great flood is a myth, so is the Tower of Bable, the Garden of Eden and lots of other things. That's beside the point, though. You seem to argue the article explicitly must use the word "mythology" but have not provided any compelling argument for why and how that would improve the article. Jeppiz (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, thanks for acknowledging that, I was just trying to explain to StAnselm that of course there is mythology in the Christian Bible.  Im not saying it "must" be in the article, just that complete exclusion of it is undue.  And we should treat all religions equally and its common in many other non-Western religions articles so it can be here to.
 * These stories you mention yourself are important in the Bible so I think Christian mythology should be mentioned and linked, maybe in the Scriptures, Beliefs, or History section.
 * Alternatively, if we are going to exclude the word mythology compeltely from this article, it should be fine if I go remove it from all those other religions main wiki ariticles, right? Bilto74811 (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would think the second option more suitable. To the best of my knowledge, all religions (certainly all the larger ones), include myths (or beliefs as some might say) that no mainstream historian would consider factual. That includes shared (though divergent) myths in Judaism (such as ones I mentioned), virtually all of which also became part of Christianity and several also of Islam. Christianity has its own myths (Jesus turning water to wine) so does Islam (Muhammad splitting the moon). Same thing for Buddhism (Buddha's birth) and so on. By definition, religions tend to incorporate elements contrary to science and verifiable facts. This makes it a bit of a tautology to talking about mythology in religions; it is already implied. So yes, I wouldn't see a problem in removing it. Jeppiz (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed about those myths, but it also applies to more historical claims and figures, which is where it gets controversial, ie the exodus, creationism, the flood, Moses, Achilles, etc (and Im sure many similar historical claims and figures from every religion). The literal supernatural elements and myths (water into wine, etc) are easier for religious people to accept as myths, but the semi-historical claims or entirely historical claims end up in controversy because some religious people object to their own religions histrocial claims being downgraded to non-historical, mythical status.  But scholars say those I listed and others are myths and not historical so we should use this terminology.
 * I could see how one might not want it on the main page for each religion, although I think it belongs there. At the very least there should be parity though, so all have it or all do not. Bilto74811 (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The other problem is that "myth" is a loaded term and much misunderstood. Many people here the word and think "not true". StAnselm (talk) 01:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It generally does mean that, theyre not historical events or figures. scholars do not consider the flood myth, tower of babel, exodus, Moses, Achilles, creationism, etc to be historical, ie theyre not true.  Whereas CMT, as Jeppiz mentioned, is false because academic consensus is that there was a human Jeusus, so he is not a myth.   And of course all myths could be based on something Bilto74811 (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge
I don't know if it has been discussed before, but wouldn't be better for Christians to be merged with Christianity? Besides, much of the information presented there already exists here. The same could be said for the Muslims/Islam articles. Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is meant to be a top-level article, with subtopics in separate articles. Merging would create undue weight. StAnselm (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Jesus wasnt the son of god
Jesus didnt say he was the son of god it was just a rumor that eventually was accepeted as fact.In reality he lived a normal life besides being born from his unmarreid mother.(Also please exuse my spelling mistakes if I have any.).Jesus died normally not on a cross.The reason the symbol of christanity is a cross is because back then they would put people on crosses so when being pulblicly beat the could not resist being hit.In other word many people think he died on a cross but in reality god took him off earth and protects him till the day of jugdement is near and gather his islamic followers to see who will stay by him or belive that the false prophet (al masih al dajal) and tries to convince the people that he is god and some people will belive him.The only people that wont belive him that day are the religiously strong muslims and they will stand by jesus and go to heavan.Buzzybee5232 (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the doctrine. I'll inform the Pope of his many errors. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This really should be removed per WP:NOTFORUM. The article doesn't say that Jesus was definitely the son of God, that is a religious belief that Wikipedia doesn't hold. It says that Christians believe Jesus was the son of God. It is illogical to argue that Christians don't believe it, just because Muslims like OP don't believe it. This is like writing that the Jews don't really believe that the Messiah is yet to come, because the Christians believe he already did. I don't think OP was suggesting any improvements to the article, just a cheap public shot at preaching his religion to users he suspects are Christians, i.e. WP:NOTHERE. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It is difficult to verify many of the statements made above.

It is not certain that Jesus existed, and I suspect that in the original telling of the story, Jesus was supposed to have slipped away naked on the night they tried to arrest him (Mark 14:51) and one of his disciples was sacrificed in his stead.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

See also: Proving History, and On the Historicity of Christ, by Richard Carrier

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier Mechachleopteryx (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We're taking debunked, fringe theories seriously now? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't waste your time replying to them Laurel. WP:NOTHERE. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV issue in the lead - not all Christian groups are monotheistic
This is made clear in the article on Monotheism and God in Christianity and of course Nontrinitarianism. I'm not sure if there's discussion anywhere about the Christians who despite belong to groups that accept the mainstream Trinitarian belief actually don't follow it, but that's an issue I'm interested in but aren't pressing here. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think calling this POV is accurate. It’s a matter of adequately encompassing all Christian traditions without getting bogged down in verbosity. Since a large majority of Christians are monotheistic - as those same articles state - the lead goes with the large majority description. Perhaps a footnote would be sufficient. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mainstream Trinitarian Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, most protestant denominations) considers itself to be monotheistic i.e., one God in three persons. Non-trinitarian denominations are a very small minority and even among them, the largest group ie., Oneness Pentecostals are monotheistic i.e., one God who incarnates as three persons. Christianity is recognised by scholars who study religion as an Abrahamic monotheistic tradition. However, some past now extinct denominations of Christianity i.e Arianism might be considered as non-monotheistic by some definitions. Therefore calling it POV is inaccurate.Epiphyta (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oneness/Trinitarianism debates don't significantly impact the monotheism/non-monotheism debate, do they? Oneness and Trinitarianism are both mostly "One God" monotheistic, aren't they? If the two debates do happen to interact, it would seem to be at a level of fine detail far removed from the "general overview" focus of the lead of a WP article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd say it's perfectly NPOV to say that Christianity is monotheistic. A much more controversial question is whether religious movements such as Latter Day Saints and Jehova's Witnesses are Christian. They tend to see themselves as Christians whereas most mainstream Christians churches don't consider them Christian. It's a rather close similarity to the Druze and mainstream Islam. Jeppiz (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a neutral website and since Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons consider themselves as Christians,than who are we to call them non-Christians. It's similar to Ahmadi Muslims who are labelled as non-Muslims and discriminated against in several Muslim-majority countries but they are labelled as Muslims here on Wikipedia because they identify as such. Druze are another extreme, their beliefs are quite similar to Shia Islam but they mostly don't identify as Muslims.Epiphyta (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. My point is that anyone reading the lead would think that all Christians are monotheists, which isn't true. I'm guessing that most or all of the sources that don't deal with this are written by people who define Christianity as monotheistic and do not consider Mormons, etc., Christians. Doug Weller  talk 15:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In what sense Christianity being monotheistic isn't true? Can you please elaborate it because I am unable to understand the point you are trying to make. Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic tradition according to both its adherents as well as scholars of religion. Any view contrary to this will be considered POV, not the other way around. Fringe groups gave existed in every religion, but that doesn't merit changing the whole definition of that particular religion. Regards Epiphyta (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Are we discussing the lead, as explicitly stated in this section's heading, or the body of the article? An article lead is, by its nature, a high-level brief overview; broad brush strokes.  The fine detail belongs in the body of the article rather than clogging up a lead.  In that "broad brush stroke" sense for the lead, Christianity can be regarded as monotheistic. There may be scope in the body of the article for diving into some minority aspects that may fall outside that "monotheistic" description.  But for the lead, isn't "monotheistic" adequate?  The context here is specifically that of article lead, not body.  Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with that 'In that "broad brush stroke" sense for the lead, Christianity can be regarded as monotheistic.' Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Feline Hymnic’s point was identical to mine and as such I, too, agree with it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it's basically monotheistic, but you do not have to be a monotheist to be a Christian. However, if there's agreement that the lead is NPOV as it is, then where does the fact that not all Christian denominations go? What section? Doug Weller  talk 18:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * articles about those specific groups would be a good place to start. For example, Mormonism's henotheistic tendencies can be elaborated in the relevant article. The denominations section of this article can also be used for this purpose, but I can't find any subsection dedicated to Mormonism or other similar groups.Epiphyta (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I meant in this article, which others seem to find acceptable. Doug Weller  talk 11:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * as I have already said in my previous comment, we can write about these divergent groups i.e., those who identify themselves as Christian but differ radically from the standard definition of Christianity, in the denominations section of this article. Regards11:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , one problem here is that Mormons identify as Christians (as you say) and also identify as monotheistic. Most others disagree, identifying them as neither Christian nor monotheistic. That debate is not for this article. However, it would seem (and please correct me if I misunderstand your position) you suggest we should accept the Mormon view to include them as Christians but should not accept the Mormon view that they are monotheistic. I have a hard time reconciling that with NPOV and RS. Again, perhaps I misunderstand your suggestion. Jeppiz (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * isn't that just the Community of Christ? Ah, I think I'm wrong, see this. Although the article itself (Mormonism and Nicene Christianity) doesn't mention monotheism although it has two sources which seem to argue against that. Anyway, I was basing my views on our articles of them, not personal knowledge, and you are likely right. Doug Weller  talk 15:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Let me propose "nearly ubiquitously monotheistic" which would require some change in word order. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"Cultural Christians" deserve more space
... as they still do run the show in many (most?) advanced countries. Christendom isn't the right term for them either (doesn't apply to well to the modern world), so here is the place. Arminden (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Historical inconsistencies
The "Chapel of Saint Ananias" is not from the 1st century, it's from the 5th: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saint_Ananias. The source that claims it's from the 1st century was written by the pastor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainer_Riesner. He is not a historian, and it's pretty easy to see why his writings aren't an objective source. --StratoWarrior (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nideggen-St.Johannes Baptist249.JPG

Serious lack of content in Criticism, Persecution
The section would suggest the reader will receive a fair critique of the organized religion however it offers a weak and light criticism of other groups treatment of individual Christians or minor critiques on the faiths ideologies.

Here are some very high level summary statements that could use expansion in this section:

The crusades - the religious was started by the church which began with the wholesale slaughter of Muslim and Jewish peoples. Knights would kill babies with swords and believe the heathen babies would find salvation in the afterlife. They were told by the pope all sins in the war would be forgiven in heaven.

The Spanish Inquisition 22-36 thousand innocent men women and children murdered by the church many more forced to convert to Christianity then treated abhorrently after converting. Concerts were called “pigs” or “moranos” and could be accused at any time of not having truly converted to Christianity. It was a continuation of the medieval inquisition.

Antisemitism and the near extinction of Jewish People. The Roman’s adopted the sect of Judaism created by Paul largely in response to fear that more pagans were turning to Judaism then to worship of the emperors. The created the modern Bible a little over 300 years after they killed Yeshua who they renamed Jesus. They have created and sustained almost all antisemitism in antiquity and the modern area. They created the caricature of Jews a hunched over ugly people famously still shared today. The Catholic Church is responsible for the wide spread belief that Jews are secretly a unified and powerful group (instead of a small persecuted minority) these beliefs are responsible for hundreds of massacre and mass murder events including the Holocaust in which the Pope the remained completely silent never once condemning the wholesale slaughter of Jews until it was clear that a German military defeat was immediately eminent.

The Passion Play: little is known about Yeshuas death. Only a few facts are not disputed. That Roman’s crucified people who verbally or physically revolted their rule. That the 13th Roman Governor of Israel ordered Yeshua crucified. That there was an internal conflict among the Jewish population regarding pacifism or violent resistance of Rome. However after the Roman’s adopted the new sect of Judaism and Romanized the name of Jesus and Christianity they continuously minimized the role of Pontius pilot in Yeshuas death and increased the supposed role of the Pharisees. To sell this belief they created the passion play to produce hatred and the passion play story still exists in many forms today.

Sex scandals - I don’t think I need to cover this one we all know the church engaged in and covered up massive sexual abuse of children but a summary and link to the existing wiki article should exist here. Boomtheskeptic (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't like it, feel free to work on it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * However, be sure to delineate between criticism of the religion itself, and criticism of events falsely done in the name of the religion / by religious leaders that actually conflict with it. Those are two different concepts. For example, the sex scandals probably don't belong here for that reason, and the Crusades may not either - of at least should be footnoted with modern religious scholar criticism which finds the Crusades in conflict with Christianity. Don't fall into the trap of enumerating every possible criticism, but instead use the criticism section of other religious pages as a guideline to outline major spheres of criticism. To extend the above example, the forced castration of the Indian people during the Islamic invasion of the early 20th century doesn't belong on the Islam page, because (among other reasons) that action conflicted with the Islamic religion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2021
i want to edit stuff on history i know quit a bit about history so i want to correct or make a new thing if something Bobo 06134 (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. DigitalChutney (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Christianity on a Global Spectrum
I need to know how God’s word is universal and globally renowned. 66.222.23.10 (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

True or false
It is erroneous to claim Christianity in terms of fact, the way this page has. There is still debate about whether a Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.

Then you look at a Pagan page, or something more eclectic, like the psychic world..

And everything is "supposed."

What a crock! Shamanluc (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Read the article again. It is in WP voice, which means that factual statements ("It is the world's largest religion", etc.) are backed up by reliable sources, and statements regarding the faith's character ("Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God") are also factual, without WP postulating on the veracity of those beliefs. Yes, there is still debate about whether a Jesus of Nazareth ever existed, but the vast majority of secular, scholarly sources state that one did exist, to the extent that historical sources can provide any concrete evidence on 2000 year old persons. See Historical Jesus for more info. Meanwhile, I could find nowhere in this article that WP states Jesus did, in fact, exist - only that Christians believe that he did, which is an objective fact. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "There is still debate about whether a Jesus of Nazareth ever existed." And how is that remotely relevant to this page? 21 centuries of Christian history provide more topics to write on than whether an insignificant itinerant preacher ever existed, or whether he was a figment of the imagination. Dimadick (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 20 centuries, not 21. Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Christian flag
The § Ecumenism section refers to the Christian Flag, with an image of the flag. When I check the sources on the flag's article, it appears to be a symbol that is used only in the United States and perhaps (more limited usage) in Canada. I can't find any evidence that this is a recognisable ecumenical symbol – outside of North America. The word ecumenical after all literally means 'worldwide', not 'regional'. The topic of this article is worldwide Christianity, and so I think that a symbol that only has relevancy to a particular country or region should not be used as an illustration in the ecumenism section. I propose either that the symbol is removed or at the very least the text should be edited to made clear that the flag is unknown to the large majority of Christians in other countries. --Hazhk (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Christian Flag is widely used in South America, Asia, and Africa too. However, it does not have universal usage. For now, though, I have supplanted the image with a photo of Roman Catholic and Lutheran clergy. I hope this helps. AnupamTalk 19:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sceptical about if it is actually widely used in those regions. The only references to this are from American denomination sources. The new image is an improvement! --Hazhk (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've yet to see the Christian flag here in Japan, though most of the churches I visit don't have foreign missionaries. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as images go, there is plenty of space in that section for both. The flag image can go in the middle of the section, where it is mentioned. If we include it in the text, we might as well include an image. StAnselm (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Add Mennonites as a Group
Sry, dont know how Wikipedia works and just made this account only to mention that under Denominations/Groups Mennonites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mennonites) should probably be added too. Ok, thx for reading and have a great day, bye. Idontknowwhatisthishere (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We cannot add every small sect, there are tens of thousands of such sects. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Further, Mennonites already are mentioned under the Protestantism section of Denominations. Am I missing something? Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2022
71.167.114.133 (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Where it says Christ was anointed, it needs to be switched to Christ IS GOD! These teachings you have given out aren’t correctly stated. CHRIST IS GOD! God himself is anointed so therefore he also is anointed but he himself IS GOD. There is not Question about that.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Christ by definition means anointed, it does not signify a deity. Dimadick (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are sects of Christianity that refuse Jesus being God, and there are also biblical passages that refuse the divinity interpretation, for example 1 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:5, John 17:3, Isaiah 46:9, Mark 10:17-18 etc. Temp0000002 (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Christ is a title, but there is no doubt that the Bible teaches that Jesus is God and Jesus is the Christ. You just have to look at the first chapter of John's gospel to understand Jesus as God, the whole of scripture is centered around Jesus as God as Jesus testified to the disciples on the road to Emmaus after His resurrection.  Those passages you site are misinterpreted if they are used to prove (or even to shed doubt) that Jesus is not God, especially the Mark passage where Jesus downplays His divinity, He does not dispute it.   There are plenty of passages where He confirms His deity when He needs to.  A sect that refuses the deity of Jesus is apostate, they can call themselves Christian, but what would be the point, only God is worthy of worship and praise. David G Martin (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @David G Martin tgeorgescu (talk)  18:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @David G Martin Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an institution that backs up certain interpretation of one religion's sacred book. Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire which had a tradition of divinizing its rulers. In fact said tradition was one of the reasons why Christians were persecuted before, because they refused to worship Roman emperors as gods. The Bible was written by a variety of authors who many times likely took into consideration their personal beliefs, the desires of their authorities, political and practical considerations, among other things which took precedence over historical facts. And then there is the selection of the various and diverse religious texts that were in circulation, a process as fallible as any other human process of the time. Thinker78  (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But encyclopedias are supposed to contain truth. The Bible is the only sure source of truth about Christianity, why wouldn't you start with it? David G Martin (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are many other sources about Christianity, not only the Bible, which is also used. Thinker78  (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, he he. Wikipedia contains verifiable information, not truth - a subtle distinction, as explained at WP:NOTTRUTH. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The way you phrased it is not accurate though. Wikipedia contains verifiable information which is supposedly true, although sometimes it is and hopefully just a minority of times, it is not. Thinker78  (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Christianity is not a monotheism.
How can the writer of the page just declares Christianity is monotheistic ? How can you fit three person in to one person or three Gods in to one God ? Even you use three person = one god logic then Hinduism and all paganism are monotheistic. 103.106.201.51 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's already answered in the article (in several places) as well as the Monotheism article, and is backed by RSs. The article also covers Christian branches that are exceptions. For a start, look at inclusive monotheism. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, you can look at any religion in the world, literally any religion, and you would only find monotheism if inclusive monotheism were the correct interpretation. Aztecs monotheistic? Shinto monotheistic? Egyptians monotheistic? I can safely say that your interpretation is wrong lest you were to admit polytheism doesn't exist at all. Lastly, reliable sources cannot be used to overgeneralize, for example nobody has the authority to say Christianity is "monotheistic" if there are Christians who disagree too, as such you would prefer one type of Christians over another type of Christians, and being selective is childish and incorrect. The link hereby cited also explains why Christianity should better be labeled polytheistic but since the majority disagrees I'll only ask to not take for granted that Christianity is monotheistic but rather imitate the page on Hinduism where it says someone can be Hindu and at the same time be monotheistic, polytheistic, henotheistic, monistic, etc.. 79.23.97.19 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover, to be more careful with the wording, I propose to change the main article from "Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." to "Christianity is an Abrahamic religion, often considered monotheistic, and based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." Temp0000002 (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt OP will find reliable sources to back their original research. Their response also indicates they do not understand what the term "inclusive monotheism" actually means. In the context of this discussion, "pluriform monotheism" may be more clear to them. They will need to find a preponderance of RSs to override the wide array of sources currently cited which disagree with them. They also need to remember that WP does not try to capture every nuance and every minor exception to a topic in the lead, lest leads become excessively detailed OR excessively generic to the point of being unusable: it is sufficient to characterize Christianity as a monotheistic religion in the lead when an overwhelming majority of adherents call it that, as do both secular and religious RSs, then point out exceptions in the body of the article. (To wit: there are those who disagree with "Abrahamic", "religion", "based on the life and teachings", "Jesus", and "Christ". Shall we remove all those from the definition as well?) Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The belief on god is so important in the main page that the trinity is included, and luckily it is mentioned that Arians are non-trinitarians, but they believed only the father was god (they cited John 17:3), likewise if Christianity cannot be labeled as exclusively trinitarian it cannot be labeled as exclusively monotheistic either. By the way the term soft polytheism fits the idea of the trinity pretty well. Temp0000002 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources disagree with you. Until that changes, the lead should not. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Mormons, for example, are polytheistic. I hope people understand it's better to not label the whole religion as monotheistic. Temp0000002 (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because someone says they are a Christian doesn't mean they hold to all Christian beliefs, therefore, you cannot redefine what Christianity is based on those who follow Christianity. You must define Christianity by what the original Church in the first century believed and practiced.  All the different sects of Christianity began to break off when they lost the original definition or they chose to move away from it because of persecution or just a plain sinful nature. There are some who have migrated back toward the original understanding of the Apostolic Church.  Others have stubbornly kept their apostate course.  Christianity is not just based on the teachings of Jesus, it has as its foundation, Judaism.  That's why the doctrines are more accurately called Judeo-Christian beliefs.  Israel will, as a nation, become Christian when their eyes are opened and they see their Messiah as Jesus whom they crucified.  The entire Bible teaches of only one God and that is the definition of monotheistic.  The doctrine of the Trinity is taught throughout scripture as one God existing as three distinct Persons.  This does not make Judeo-Christianity polytheistic. David G Martin (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @David G Martin The problem is is that opinions don’t matter as we go by what reliable sources say.  Doug Weller  talk 16:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For Christianity, there is only one reliable source and that's the Bible, it includes everything necessary to define Christianity. It is the other sources that blur the lines and mislead people regarding the truth. David G Martin (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @David G Martin WP:THETRUTH, WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If these guidelines are all you can go by, then Wikipedia is worthless and will vanish. All the minds in the world do not equal a fraction of God's mind and He gives us that fraction in the Bible, the only source of absolute truth. David G Martin (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @David G Martin see Trinity for non monotheistic Christian denominations. Doug Weller  talk 19:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think DGM is a troll, trolling an encyclopedia based upon WP:RNPOV with his own dogmatic absolutism. This isn't Conservapedia, he will be happier there than here. Yup, their POV is just dogmatism in a biblical sauce. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's not bite the newbie. I doubt he's a troll and suppose he is a true believer who is indignant at Wikipedia over points he disagrees with in the article. @David G Martin, please inform yourself about the foundational principles of Wikipedia at WP:5P, noting particularly the text of "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about how Wikipedia works. Just click on (talk) in my signature and post on that page. YoPienso (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And if we would stick to the original Church in the first century, that would be the Petrine Christianity, which was historically defeated by the Pauline Christianity and later hunted down as Judaizer heretics. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yours seems to be a fair and helpful response. BradVesp (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a troll, but I am conservative and as should be obvious, I believe that Christianity can be defined only by God, so why look anywhere else than God's Word. It sounds like Wikipedia is the best men can do and that may be fine for observable science, but doesn't work for Christianity except to describe all the ways Christianity can be ruined.  It's a relationship with God through Jesus anyway and not a religion.  Religion is a term created by man, mentioned only once in the Bible (James 1:27) where it sets a bar too high for anyone to reach but a standard all believers should strive for. David G Martin (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You are wholly free to be a conservative, however Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHEOCRACY, so statements which the clergy attribute to God aren't the definitions used by Wikipedia.
 * Herein lies the rub: Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne, and Yale count as authorities for Wikipedia, the Bible does not count as an authority. You are of course free to believe in the Bible, but around here WP:CHOPSY always trump the Bible. We put the word of mainstream scholars above the Word of God. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure you can find someone at Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne, or Yale who would say some parts from the Bible (Gospels, the letters Paul wrote to the early Christian communities, etc) are valid authoritative sources. BradVesp (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't get your hopes too high: JPY Le Goff. There is of course a huge difference if we are speaking of historicity or we are speaking of theology. Two very different subjects. tgeorgescu (talk)  03:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: Here you can find a good counterpoint to your source [1 ]. Enjoy it. Potatín5 (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Potatín5 Conservative and Reform Rabbis-scholars will tell you there is not much historicity in the Torah, and that they are fine with that. Since they're not fundamentalists engaging in denialism, they know that the fundies lost the dispute, fact acknowledged by everyone in the know, except fundies. While here and there some detail might be disputed (e.g. was the United Monarchy weak and small, or an average state?), and there are some accounts based upon real history, on the whole the historicity of the Bible has crumbled, for both OT and NT.
 * Ok, the history of the subject is something like this: in the West everybody believes in God, they are either Christian, Jew or Muslim. Then comes Enlightenment which says that religion is subjective belief. From it higher criticism arises. Most prominent figure: Wellhausen. Then Albright appears on the scene. The Albright school pushes archaeology as a means to prove the historicity of the Bible against the claims of the Wellhausen school (truth be told, Albright was not a fundamentalist). But things do not go well for the Albright school, as Ze'ev Herzog wrote in 1999 for Haaretz, a scientific revolution took place in archaeology . Christian fundamentalists and Jewish fundamentalists have bet on archaeology and they have lost that bet. They could be compared to a priest who lost all the money of the church at a casino. They are left with huge cognitive dissonance and all they can do is furiously preach the lie that archaeology cannot contradict the Bible (see e.g. for such POV).
 * Fundamentalists may deny this for as long as they wish, but for the reality-based community it is clear that archaeology and the historical method behave like bulldozers which crush the ants nests of biblicism, not out of hate for ants/religion, but because those ants nests stand in their way. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: You know, at this point I'd rather you stay in your Narnia-like world than take apart all your fantasies. Go and enjoy. Potatín5 (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Christianity is a history-based religion to such an extent that it would rather commit harakiri than say that the historical method is the work of the Devil. I don't agree with everything Nietzsche said, but he was spot on that the quest for objective truth, specific for Christianity, has ruined the intellectual foundations of traditional Christianity.
 * If you need a source for the above, this has been written by several faithful Rabbis, but not of the fundamentalist sort:
 * I have applied the test of WP:USEBYOTHERS to Berman's book: there are two reviews at EBSCO and one citation at JSTOR, it seems that every academic who isn't an Orthodox Jew did not bother to discuss the book, except for somebody at a theology faculty from Turkey. The lack of negative reviews is scary, it means that critical readers or just readers outside of his denomination did not bother to read his book. The lack of scholarly reviews is also scary, since reviewing a book published at Oxford is a straightforward and easy way to get published in mainstream journals. Oh, wait, he was published at Toby Press, not at OUP.
 * Frankly, Le Goff is not a big authority, so I don't care much for his own research&mdash;but since he has a PhD in history, he can be trusted to understand what he reads&mdash;he was not expressing personal opinions, but rendering and explaining sources.
 * Here is a WP:RS/AC-compliant quote: "“there is little that we can salvage from Joshua’s stories of the rapid, wholesale destruction of Canaanite cities and the annihilation of the local population. It simply did not happen; the archeological evidence is indisputable.”This is the judgment of one of the more conservative historians of ancient Israel. To be sure, there are far more conservative historians who try to defend the historicity of the entire biblical account beginning with Abraham, but their work rests on confessional presuppositions and is an exercise in apologetics rather than historiography. Most biblical scholars have come to terms with the fact that much (not all!) of the biblical narrative is only loosely related to history and cannot be verified."
 * Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @BradVesp Historical reliability of the Gospels Doug Weller  talk 19:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning maybe disputed by others here, and the tertiary comments about Israel's future maybe off topic, but your supposition (that Christianity is monotheistic) is appropriate for the topic. Using the Bible as reference seems appropriate to me.  It is almost by definition a primary source.  Yet, too, there have been many things that influenced Christianity since the Bible. BradVesp (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, as Francesca Stavrakopoulou stated on YouTube, True Monotheism&trade; is in reality impossible. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Some parts of the Christian New Testament are primary sources, but not all. WP:NOR is clear about this: "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source for the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources"
 * And what is the Bible? It's a collection of books written at various times, often long after the alleged events. Most of its authors are unknown, there are no original manuscripts. Its books are interpreted in multiple ways, and without one single interpretation it's obvious there are many interpretations of what Christianity is. Our article on Christianity makes that very clear and points that that not all Christians are Trinitarians. The doctrine of Trinitarianism was not settled until the 4th century. Then there's Christian atheism. Some Christian denominations are pacifist, but many have engaged in warfare against other denominations.
 * To understand Christianity you need to understand the development of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament and study the varying beliefs and actions of Christians over the centuries. You can't take just one version of the Christian Bible and say that's what Christianity is. @David G Martin what version are you using?  Doug Weller  talk 15:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So I will not participate in Wikipedia. I believe God is the only source of truth and I believe He is powerful enough to preserve His original sources so that we can understand His perfect will, regardless what version I use as long as it isn't one man's interpretation.  There is nothing verifiable apart from His truth.  We observe things and can even accurately predict how things work, but God determines what we can know. David G Martin (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your own choice. I believe in God. Wikipedia has Christian admins. But we all play by WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's your own choice. I believe in God. Wikipedia has Christian admins. But we all play by WP:RULES. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Original polytheistic mention
I believe there should be a mention of the divine assembly in the Bible in Psalms 82:1 since various people talk about. 87.18.114.73 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * James K. Mead said polytheism (option d) is the best way to interpret Psalms 82 and Deuteronomy 32:8. Steve Schramm also said it's a possible interpretation.
 * It has also been said by some that the divine beings of Psalm 82 could not be humans. I propose to mention in the main article the possibility of polytheism as an interpretation of this passage. 79.23.97.19 (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The interpretation of Psalm 82 to differenciate between Yahweh and El/Elyon is questioned.
 * The rejection of the existence of other deities is absurd. Temp0000002 (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Modern Judaism did grow out of a polytheistic religion but how is that relevant? Doug Weller  talk 17:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Polytheistic mention in the main page by Temp0000002
A possible interpretation of Psalms 82:1 and Deuteronomy 32:8-9 pushed various people like James K. Mead and Steve Schramm to conclude that originally the Bible taught polytheism. It is said that the beings of Psalms 82 could not be human. Yahweh is considered different from Elyon in Psalms 82, indicating a multiplicity of deities. Others say rejecting the existence of multiple deities is absurd.

Dr. Matthew Rammage says that Deuteronomy 32:8-9 was written to reflect the Caananite belief that El assigned to each nation its own god, which shows that in a stage the Israelite tradition viewed El and Yahweh as distinct deities.

Benjamin Sommer said that if monotheism means "the belief that no deities exist other than the one God", then the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is not a "monotheistic work". Paula Fredriksen says that for ancient Jews and ancient Christians, God was not the only god, "not even in his own book".

Bob Seidensticker explains that Exodus 20:3, which says "You shall have no other gods before me", was written when the Israelites were still polytheistic.

Israel Drazin says that Deuteronomy 6:4 is monolatrous.

Monotheism began only as a consequence of the Babylonian exile. Joshua J. Mark said that until the Babylonial captivity the Jews believed in many gods while putting emphasis on a single supreme deity.

Michael S. Heiser disagrees that the Old Testament was polytheistic, however, he quotes Psalms 89:5-7 to show that the beings of the divine council were not human. David Penchansky says polytheism and monotheism existed simultaneously.
 * thanks for having the courage to put this in the article. However, it is serious undue weight for this article. It also looks like that you're writing an essay. StAnselm (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I thank you for considering the changes I made. I've been waiting for this a long time and I really appreciate your kindness. I ask you what is the proper way to best shorten and improve the text for a future reintroduction. May God bless you and grant you only good happenings. Temp0000002 (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, even if the OT was original polytheistic (or has polytheistic elements), it's still a long bow to draw to say that Christianity was originally polytheistic, or has polytheistic origins. That would need good sourcing, and even then possibly having one sentence in the article. StAnselm (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I did what I thought was best; how can I put the many claims into a single sentence? And I don't know if the sources are not seen as acceptable by others. Usually it is believed that Christianity lays its foundation on Judaism, and Paula Fredriksen said both ancient Jews and ancient Christians were polytheistic which removes the wrong idea of some people that the Old Testament should is not authoritative. I ask for your help in how to improve the changes and possibly fit into the article. Temp0000002 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source, I would add Fredriksen to the end of footnote 70, which is about Christianity's monotheism. StAnselm (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Most but not all Latter Day Saints aren’t Trinitarian, I don’t see that in the article. Doug Weller  talk 17:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Where's the issue? Temp0000002 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Infobox
I believe this page needs an infobox, like many others have. I made the one to the right

Please do not delete it if you are opposed to this, or you have a better infobox suggestion please leave it below this messsage Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Where would you put it? There's already the Christianity series box. YoPienso (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you put it above that box. Looked funny. I don't see how it's necessary. YoPienso (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed that it's not really necessary. If included, I would place it BELOW the series box.  If there's a way to use some of the empty space to the right of the article's outline, without increasing vertical length, it might be okay. Or, an image-free section within the series box (if the series template allows that) might be okay. Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard the phrase "Universal religion" before, and I see it doesn't even have an article. And when I follow the link it says "Others reject the distinction..." So, not appropriate for an infobox. Also, the "33AD" is unsourced and in fact is nowhere mentioned in the article. And then tere is also the old chestnut of who founded Christianity. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as Islam and Judaism as it. ZetaFive (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Everything yall are complaining about is also on the Islam and Judaism pages. Both of those pages have infoboxes ABOVE the series box so im just using precident. Secondy StAnselm had issues with the specifics of that box if they have such issues why dont they just propose an alternative info box. My infobox was built using the Islam info box and just making a few minor changes so again this infobox is based on an infobox that is already on wikipedia Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That could equally be an argument for deleting the infobox from those other pages. I do agree that consistency is warranted, whichever way this conversation goes. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jtrevor99 I second that Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I am against its inclusion. It shows nothing unique and the information it contains is already elaborated in the lead. Just because some other religion article like Islam have it doesn't warrant its inclusion here, infact I am against its use even in those articles. Moreover, many other religions like Hinduism don't have it.Neplota (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * My apologies to Greenhi. . . for not checking other pages; I've stricken my earlier comments. I agree all major religions should uniformly have or not have infoboxes. In general, I support infoboxes because I think they're helpful and widely used; general purpose encyclopedias typically have a summary box or something similar for the person who scans an article quickly. YoPienso (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for the apology Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.7.56 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright it has been a while but currently there are inconsistancies
We have a consensus that consistancy is wartented but should infoboxes stay or go i personally support stay what are yall's opinion User:Cosmictoilet(talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Editor has been blocked as NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 07:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that infoboxes have been excluded from some religions simply to avoid the debate that would ensue over the accuracy of the details and which to include. But it's a bit of zero-sum strategy, since the alternative, as we see here is simply debate over whether an infobox should be used itself, as well as spontaneous attempts by new users to introduce an infobox for consistency. Better, I would suggest, to have an infobox with minimal, consensus-agreed details than not have one and pave the way for the presence/absence of an infobox to itself be an endless stimulant of IP edit warring and recurrent talk page debate. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

There never was a consensus to include it here, and I have removed it. It had a not of strange and unsourced claims (e.g. "orientation = virtue ethics"). It's possible a greatly pared-down version could be reinstated, but we should get consensus here first. StAnselm (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent Change - Picture and Overview
So sometime in the last 2-3 days a change that was made probably a month ago seems to have been taken away.

This change was a main overview with a picture of The Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

I don’t know why you would reverse this change or take it away. All of the other main religions have this same format, and it was nice that Christianity FINALLY also fit that format.

I’d highly recommend changing it back to how it was just a few days ago. 2600:1700:1EF0:9E30:55DF:ADAF:7DD9:4330 (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

"Hıristiyanlık" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Hıristiyanlık and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 11 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022
language section is missing armenian, ge'ez and kartvelian 2A01:C22:90C7:6F00:A1EE:993D:6C91:A259 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022 (2)
and please include the names of christianity in the following respective languages besides greek: syriac, coptic, slavonic, ge'ez, armenian and kartvelian 2A01:C22:90C7:6F00:A1EE:993D:6C91:A259 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The nominator recently added some etymology in the lead without putting it in the body. It is out of place there as it offers new information, but they didn't ask me. I agree that your suggestion would be good, but so far I am not finding them responsive to suggestions. The nominator has, so far, failed to cooperate or respond to requests, posted Done on things that were not done, failed to correct citation problems, included OR in the text and failed to remove it at request, and I am fixing to fail this in the next day or two. You might want to wait and just do this yourself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This is English Language Wikipedia. I see no point in including the names of a topic in other languages. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Etymology is already in the article, and since nearly all English words have roots in other languages, it is a necessary aspect of the discussion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is against this change, removing request flag. -- Mvqr (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ummmm... what consensus? I see 2 for and 2 against. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The living dead in Eastern Christian Orthodoxy
In many religions we have people living then dying and nobody hears from them.Billions. In Eastern orthodox Christianity we have people coming from death saying EAstern Orthodox Christianity is the best available religion and denomination. Fr Ilie Lacatusu died 40 some years ago. Every week in cemetery the soul descends from Heaven and speaKS WITH BELIEVERS. Sometimes his soul enters back the body and he opens eyes and talks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:280:36B0:6013:9A9B:FFD4:F64 (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Write in English
Protestantism (800 million), which composed denominations that follows the theological tenets of the Protestant Reformation is a botched attempt at writing in English. I.e. composed is past tense (past simple), meaning the 800 million no longer do, suggesting that the number of Protestants has decreased (in reality it probably increased). denominations is plural, while follows is singular. And the correct grammar was already there, but they have removed it in order to replace it with bad grammar. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * tgeorgescu Well I did when I first put it in: see []. I don't know why they felt compelled to garble it, and to do so in such a way that it became off topic as well. Protestantism is a legitimate category of Christianity, but it is not a denomination or a church in itself in the way the other three mentioned are, so I felt compelled to differentiate it. The one short sentence seemed appropriate. Can we restore that accordingly?


 * Oh, and the source has an actual number of almost 2000, but it was adduced in the 1970's. I just went with it. It made the point, but if you don't like it, I can find something more current. I think. Maybe.

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It is cited as of 1990. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was written in 1990, but the data it cites is from the 70's. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a blog, which of course can't be used, but sounds pretty accurate, saying there are about 200 - not 2000 - denominations in America and thousands in global Christianity. [] Since these numbers vary so much, I think I will look for better sourcing. Help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This [] has a brilliant discussion. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 9000 Protestant denominations according to World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford), see and  tgeorgescu (talk)  20:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * tgeorgescu Yeah, dude on the Catholic blog discusses the World Christian Encyclopedia as unreliable. I always wonder when scholars do that - they better have something more than opinion. At any rate, it's a quality source and has a number - who knows if it's correct? But it doesn't matter, since the point in this section of the article is that Protestantism is not a denomination, it is composed of denominations - lots and lots of them! So thank you for finding these. Are you willing to go in and write something - in decent English - and cite these? It seems worthwhile to me, and I would be grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For me the difference between 2000 and 9000 denominations is moot. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no argument with that view. Numbers aren't the key point here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Pew study, the vast majority of Protestant Churches belong to the Anglican, Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Moravian, Pentecostal/Charismatic and Reformed denominational families. (Others might include nondenominational/independent congregations, but these are not separate religious traditions.) The Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Presbyterian Church in America are two different institutions, but both belong to the Presbyterian denomination. It is thus disingenuous to make claims of thousands of denominations, which are even disavowed by apologists. Furthermore, the content is simply not relevant where it is currently placed. As it is under dispute, the clause should be removed until consensus for it is obtained, if ever. Kfager1 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But it is intuitively valid: if one disagrees with how their church interprets the Bible, they start a new church, with a slightly different Protestant or Neo-Protestant theology. By and large Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not have such problem. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The material in question is new and per WP:BRD, it needs to be discussed since it's disputed. The same kinds of reports would consider Ukrainian Catholics and Latin Rite Catholics to belong to two different denominations, a claim that is under dispute. Scholars, such as Joshua Lindsey have pointed out how such numbers are flawed and this needs careful examination. Moreover, the US centric claim is inappropriate in an article about world Christianity. Kfager1 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello again tgeorgescu! Even though I am the one who created this monster, I have to agree with Kfager1's arguments: the U.S. centric claim doesn't belong here at all, and without going down a long and winding rabbit hole, there is no way to discuss accurate numbers. (And George - who says this is a problem? When there is freedom to think for one's self, there will always be disagreements. That is the strength of Wikipedia and the U.S. and probably Protestantism as well. Why would it be better for everyone to think alike?) We can reach consensus without that. We can have consensus that mentioning that Protestantism is not a denomination but is composed of many different ones would be sufficient and appropriate in this paragraph. How about it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think a footnote mentioning the major traditions that comprise Protestantism would be appropriate instead of what you included before. It would also be consistent with our other articles. For example, the footnote would read:
 * The denominations of Adventism, Anabaptism (Amish, Apostolic, Brethren, Bruderhof, Hutterites, Mennonites), Anglicanism, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Moravians/Hussites, Pentecostals, Plymouth Brethren, and Reformed Christians (Congregationalists, Continental Reformed, and Presbyterians) are the families of Protestantism. Other groups that are sometimes regarded as Protestant are usually independent and non-denominational Christian congregations. Kfager1 (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Kfager1 A note is a great idea. Would you be so kind as to take care of doing that? And thank you for speaking up and helping us maintain WP's highest standards here. I try, but I'm imperfect, so I depend on editors like you and George to keep me on the straight and narrow. Well done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your thoughtful words are truly touching. I've added the note with the proper internal links. I have been placed in a prominent position too that way when people first encounter the term Protestantism, readers will be aware of the denominations that comprise it. Kfager1 (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

True words! I have read your edit and think it is excellent. I like everything you have done; it is all well sourced and accurate. I hope we have the opportunity to work together again in the future. And thank you as well tgeorgescu. You are always fair and reasonable, and I deeply appreciate that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Use BCE and CE Rather Than BC and AD
I think this article should be neutral towards the subject matter, and thus consistently use BCE and CE instead of BC and AD. 65.175.176.37 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree. While I am a supporter of BCE/CE in most non-Christian contexts, if there's one area where it makes sense to have it, it is this one. By the way, your good faith comments, like the one above, are welcome here, regardless whether others agree with you or not. Welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree too, for the same reason. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Identifying Jesus as our dominus is insulting. We are not slaves. Dimadick (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How can you be insulted by something you choose not to accept? Everything Christian should be described relative to Christ, because Christians voluntarily submit to Christ as master. David G Martin (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like that the page would use BCE and CE, and by the way saying that there is no necessity is not an excuse in my opinion. Temp0000002 (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree. MOS:ERA allows both: Either convention may be appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles depending on the article context. So BC/AD is equally valid.  Normally, I actually veer towards BCE/CE and you'll see my edit history often restores an established BCE/CE. But in this particular case, given that (a) the ERA-style is directly relevant to the subject, (b) WP equally allows both styles (c) the established style is BC/AD, my contribution here is "stay BC/AD". Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree, I align with Feline Hymnic and Mathglot in particular although I have sympathy with Dimadick. Doug Weller  talk 18:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree per MOS:ERA. I would even posit that moving away from BC/AD usage in this article would be a step AWAY from neutrality. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. The C in BC obviously makes it non-neutral. And we all know whose alleged death the D stands for. Clearly non-neutral. HiLo48 (talk) 04:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Refusing to use BC/AD in an article that focuses both on the “C” and “D”, and the very people who originated that system, is bias, not neutrality. Avoiding BC/AD would be akin to refusing to use the Hebrew religious calendar in discussions of Judaism, or the Islamic calendar when discussing Islam. It just so happens that BC/AD and BCE/CE coincide for convenience. In virtually any other article I would agree with you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since another editor thought I might be suggesting bad faith or intentional bias in wanting to switch to BCE/CE: I want to be abundantly clear that I am not suggesting that. In the vast majority of cases, a switch to BCE/CE would be required for proper neutrality and I would support. This article is an exception. I simply suggest the above as a counterargument to the position that switching to BCE/CE ALWAYS promotes neutrality; I believe it does not, and that wanting to switch, in this case, could represent UNINTENTIONAL bias. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "The C in BC obviously makes it non-neutral. And we all know whose alleged death the D stands for. Clearly non-neutral." Isn't this itself, highly non-neutral? Could you explain, please, how this fairly represents MOS:ERA? Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to emphasize that the above was a reply to HiLo48, not me. That may have been missed. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ad is not after death it is Latin (anno Domini) meaning in the year of the Lord Realfakebezalbob (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * AD means Anno Domini, in the Year of Our Lord, not After Death. סשס Grimmchild 08:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. The Gregorian calendar divides the course of the years into two eras: the era prior to the year of Jesus' birth and the era after the birth of Jesus. To say that the traditional division of BC and AD cannot be used is like telling the ancient Romans that they cannot count their eras around the founding of Rome. Potatín5 (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No it's not. No ancient Romans either contribute to or read Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Potatín5 are you arguing that all our article should use BC and AD? Doug Weller  talk 08:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller: No, I'm just saying that any article which already uses the BC/AD division is legitimate on both logical and historical grounds. Potatín5 (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Potatín5 any article about any topic? About any religion no matter how unrelated to Christianity? Doug Weller  talk 08:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller: I find no reason to think that the artificial BCE/CE division would be more legitimate in any article which currently uses the BC/AD one. The BCE/CE is artificial since the Gregorian calendar does NOT divide its eras between an "uncommon" era and a "common" one, for such division lacks any logical or historical grounds (why is one era "uncommon" and the other "common"? And what makes the uncommon era transform into a "common" one? Why is the date of Jesus' birth the moment when the "uncommon" era transforms into a "common" one?). Personally, I would not oppose to any article already using the BCE/CE division to continue with it; I just see no reason to think that the BCE/CE division is better for any topic than the BC/AD one. Potatín5 (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you can "see NO reason", then you probably need to look a little closer at your own personal biases. Obviously, to many non-Christians, there are good reasons. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @HiLo48: Well, if you have as many good reasons as you say, then I would like to know what you are waiting for to tell them. At least I have given my own reasons for keeping BC/AD division, you haven't. Potatín5 (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How many reasons did I say I have? HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you use the plural noun "reasons", then you must have a plurality of them. Potatín5 (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This conversation really isn't working. I'm not sure if it's worth continuing trying. I assume you recognise that there are people in the world who have completely different beliefs from Christians? Or no beliefs at all? To many of them, including me, using a notation based on just one of the (maybe) 4,000 religions in the world is at least silly, and in some cases offensive. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, MOS:ERA. It accepts that both ways of working are still legitimate. Even its Norman Conquest and Plotinus examples are expressed as BC/AD.  You may find BC/AD "silly"; you are entitled to your opinion on that.  But could you state your case with reference to MOS:ERA, please? Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Moreover using before christ is not accurate since according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born in 4 BCE, and according to the Gospel of Luke, Jesus was born in 6 CE. (Information taken from https://www.dictionary.com/e/should-we-use-bce-instead-of-bc/) Temp0000002 (talk) 10:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Temp0000002 that doesn't matter, it's a convention. Doug Weller  talk 12:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree, per WP:ERA. YoPienso (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Normally I do use BCE and CE, but the topic is Christianity, therefore the most appropriate approach imo is to use their terminology. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The BC/AD system was not in use until about the 6th-8th century and was only invented as a method for Christians to avoid using the standard system at the time. The entire BC/AD system is biased ab initio. The terminology in use by Christians at the time was not BC/AD so using the system is not using their terminology. They used the Julian calendar, which started on March and had 10 months, but we don't use that anymore because it's outdated. Also, the first Christians were not only living in a Roman client state but they were Jewish, so it should be Anno Mundi, not Anno Domini, if you want to use "their terminology". This is not a theological website, it should be kept objective and neutral. The BCE/CE system is the system used by academia, science and even many theological studies. By using AD/BC the site would be lowering it's standards and giving biased information. The most appropriate approach imo is to treat this website as if it were an encyclopaedia style site rather than a biblical text. Silver Dante (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It’s not biased. It was the most commonly used system in the western world for centuries, regardless of its origin. Avoiding its usage based on origin, despite its prevalence in non-Christian contexts for centuries, could in fact constitute bias and, I would argue, a lowering of WP’s standards. Furthermore, [MOS:ERA] explicitly states the BC/AD system is acceptable: it puts BC/AD and BCE/CE on equal footing, and stated the system an article uses should not change “without reasons specific to its content”. There are few clearer places to apply BC/AD than this article. That same MOS also requires consensus to change, and it is obvious no such consensus exists. There is no compelling reason to continue this discussion. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As soon as you wrote "There are few clearer places to apply BC/AD than THIS article", YOU demonstrated a bias towards Christianity. No article should be treated differently from others just because it has a Christian flavour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious. You think using a dating system created by Christians, on the article about Christianity, when it was subsequently used for hundreds of years in secular circles who had no problem with its origins and simply found it convenient and ubiquitous, demonstrates bias? Quite the contrary: refusing to use it here, in contravention of WP guidelines on this specific point, is bias against the religious on an article whose topic is said religion. You need to be EXTREMELY careful about conflating bias and respect - both for the religious, and for already established guidance. "Unbiased" does not mean always defaulting to secular norms; and editors do not take well to false claims such as yours. I will, out of respsect, refrain from making such inflammatory claims about your own position. Meanwhile, if you don't like what WP has already stated about this, take it up at MOS:ERA - not here. And, as an addendum, I will point out that you never responded to editors above who made exactly the same point to you previously. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, using a Christian dating system for Christian articles is obviously a demonstration of bias. I don't know how any rational person could see it any other way. HiLo48 (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, refusing a Christian dating system for Christian articles - and contradicting WP guidelines to do so - is obviously a demonstration of bias. I don't know how any rational person could see it any other way. You have proven you have no problem throwing vapid insults in lieu of actual, rational, arguments. Any opinions you express here will be weighed accordingly. I will not waste my time responding to your baiting further. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am NOT baiting. I am pointing out that asking for Christian articles to be treated differently from other articles is simply ridiculous, and NOT how Wikipedia should work. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I am not aware of the Bible using either one, so I don't see how claiming this is being used as a biblical text makes any sense at all. Neither of these approaches can be considered neutral. The BCE/CE system is not the system used by academia, it is one of the systems used. The BC/AD dating system was devised in 525 by Dionysius Exiguus, and you acknowledge that was "invented as a method for Christians...", therefore it is a Christian system, and this is an article on Christianity. Bias is everywhere, certainly everywhere here, so that proves nothing either. None of your arguments have any real weight. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (rewritten - realized I mistargeted second response) Thank you for your reply. While I would respectfully disagree - I believe that bias can be contextual (based on the article subject) in this matter, MOS:ERA is clear in accepting either, and requiring a burden for any change. Specifically, I think the BCE/CE system needs to be used for any article not directly related to Christianity. Furthermore, I would be fine with using, for example, the Islamic calendar on Islam or the Jewish one on Judaism - with translations to BCE/CE to satisfy MOS:ERA and help the reader, of course. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Jtrevor99 Sure, but I'm afraid you would never get consensus support for that. Using the Islamic and Jewish calendars would require posting two dates for every date given, whereas the Christian calendar is in common use and does not require conversion.
 * Drop down to "Retaining existing format". It says, If you do a wikiblame search, you will find the article has evolved using BC/AD for 21 years.
 * Here is the original article created at 05:10, 14 November 2001. In this original you will find the use of AD.
 * says:
 * The section referred to says,
 * This argument is not new, but even this recognizes that BC/AD are appropriate at times, "that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. Surely you will agree that is this article.
 * I don't see any 'substantial reasons' for change being presented here. WP policy on the beginning of, and the evolutionary history of, the article support using BC/AD, and do not support change. As I said originally, the context is Christian, therefore the Christian convention is appropriate. I don't see that there's any other choice here really. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Jtrevor99 You might be interested in  belief bias Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar. I'll simply comment that those who have read my responses with an open mind know that has no impact here. And if it did, I would posit it equally impacts the arguments of those pushing for other viewpoints. Again, the secular viewpoint is not always the unbiased one. Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the bias debate earlier in this section (June 19-20, 2022), please remember how we decide whether to use British or American spelling--WP:TIES: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. I think the same principle applies to dating systems--a strong tie between an article subject and a dating system recommends it above an equally accepted and useful alternate system. YoPienso (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well said imo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Kristendom" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kristendom and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Kristendommen" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kristendommen and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Impact Of Christianity On Civilization" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Impact Of Christianity On Civilization and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Number of Christianity in the world 2022
I want to update the number of Christianity in the world for 2022 because number of Christianity has increased from 2.4billion in 2020 to 2.548 billion in 2022 Daniel oppong Asare (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Number of Christianity
The center for the study of Global Christianity at Gordon - conwell theological seminary regularly update a report tracking statistics and trends of religion in general and Christianity specifically estimate that there were 2.56billion the growth was 1.17 percent growth rate in 2022 Daniel oppong Asare (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 02:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Christianism
Christianism is simply “the religious system, tenets, or practices of Christians” (Merriam-Webster). But the term is often used to refer to an ideology that leverages Christian terminology, ideas, or themes to pursue worldly or political power. Christianism is often applied unfairly to anyone who connects his faith to his political views. Lakshay9887 (talk) 10:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah lowly Anon here, but none of the references given in the intro support the idea that "Christianism" is an alternative name for Christianity, or even use the word at all.
 * On a somewhat more humorous note,my autocorrect keeps trying to change it as well. 2600:100E:B040:E872:0:51:309B:5101 (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Polytheistic mention (descendent of the Archive 61 of the talk page)
What are your suggestions to improve the mention? The text used is:

Temp0000002 (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * A number of considerations:
 * WP:LEAD summarizes the article; this piece of info iz not in the article;
 * WP:UNDUE: what's the relevance anyway?
 * misformulation: was the Old Testament rewritten, from polytheistic to monotheistic? Or was Palestine/Judaic/Israelid faith once polytheistic?
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  15:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Judaic faith was polytheistic and then it changed around the Babylonian Exile. It's written in the sources. Temp0000002 (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "The Judaic faith was polytheistic and then it changed around the Babylonian Exile." Correct, but the Babylonian captivity itself was limited to the 6th century BCE. Several books of the Old Testament are not that old. The Book of Genesis dates to either the 5th or the 3rd century BCE, and does not really reflect the polytheistic beliefs of the pre-exile period. I am not certain that the sentence in its current form accurately represents the idea that some of these books kept being written or revised for much of the Second Temple period. Dimadick (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This material is all covered at Origins of Judaism, which describes the evolution from polytheistic Canaanite religion into Yahwist monolatry and finally into monotheism in the post-exilic era following exposure to other Mesopotamian faith systems. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to expand the textual perspective on that, that's one of the better places to start. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that this would almost certainly qualify as a WP:REFBOMB &mdash; Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 05:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hindu influence
How to add this information? https://www.news24.com/news24/christianitys-similarities-with-hinduism-20140518. Temp0000002 (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not. not WP:RS, and David Frawley and Koenraad Elst are perennial fringe pseudo-scholars, living in a parallel universe of fa tasies. As in
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  15:33, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The irony, at the bottom of that page:
 * Wikipedia is a better investment. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article on Hinduism and other religions already discusses both similarities and differrences between Christianity and Hinduism. "The Holy Trinity of Christianity, consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is sometimes seen as roughly analogous to the Trimurti of Hinduism, whose members—Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva—are seen as the three principal manifestations of Brahman, or Godhead. The specific formulation of this trinitarian relationship is not identical between the two religions" Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a better investment. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  15:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The article on Hinduism and other religions already discusses both similarities and differrences between Christianity and Hinduism. "The Holy Trinity of Christianity, consisting of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is sometimes seen as roughly analogous to the Trimurti of Hinduism, whose members—Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva—are seen as the three principal manifestations of Brahman, or Godhead. The specific formulation of this trinitarian relationship is not identical between the two religions" Dimadick (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2023
Change 1/3 of population to 31% as it is more accurate 86.174.181.109 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Don't see the point in being "more accurate" here as the number of followers is an estimate. Cannolis (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2023 (2)
Change after Jesus's birth to after His death which is when it started according to the bible 86.174.181.109 (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Even according to the bible, the apostles and other followers certainly followed Jesus's teachings while he was alive Cannolis (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Add Coptic, English, Ge'ez and Armenian as liturgical languages
For the Coptic faith Coptic, Ge'ez and Armenian, whereas Anglicanism it's English largely 78.189.95.243 (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023
BeneficialHope777 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC) Non-Trinitarians are not Christian, they deny God in Christianity, it is better to remove them.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Improper placement of “AD”
Maybe this is too picky, but isn’t AD supposed to come before the year? 2607:FB60:1011:2006:39B3:1C3F:9FDA:74FE (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about being "too picky"! Per MOS:ERA, "AD" can appear before or after the year. Consistency is of greater importance. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Search suggestion dropdown vandalism
Hello,

I see that when searching "Christianity", the dropdown menu of search suggestions provides a summary for this page of "Biggest myth of the century". I assume this is vandalism, but I cannot fix it myself. OgierDansk (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention. I have reverted the edit so it should be OK now? Knitsey (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like it! Thanks. OgierDansk (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2023
One the map with this Description: Azerbaijan is incorrectly coloured purple. 46.151.236.183 (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Countries with 50% or more Christians are colored purple; countries with 10% to 50% Christians are colored pink.*
 * ✅ M.Bitton (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Zion church
Are Zion churches recognized around world Tizaman (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "recognized", but we do have an article on the Zion Christian Church. You may find your answer there. HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ecumenical image
Hello. The Tomb of Jesus is identified in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for Roman Catholics and Orthodox and in the The Garden Tomb for Protestants and Evangelicals (World Evangelical Alliance: 600 million evangelicals = 1 in 3 Christians). This reality must be specified, for reasons of neutrality (Neutral point of view) and ecumenism. Both images should be present or another image in the infobox, such as a cross, would be more representative and ecumenical. My best wishes of peace and love (WikiLove).--Nathan B2 (talk) 15:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide a specific replacement image as a suggestion. That is more helpful. Thank you. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * User:Nathan B2, first of all, evangelicals are a subset of Protestantism so saying "Protestants and Evangelicals" is nonsensical. With regard to the image in the infobox, it currently shows the Church of the Nativity, which is undisputed by Christians of various denominations as the birthplace of Jesus. There is thus no need to replace it, in my view. AnupamTalk 17:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, and . Thank you for the message. Happy to find a collaborative, peaceful, friendly, and ecumenical solution with you! The use of Mainline Protestants and Evangelicals is more frequent (examples: | Evangelicals v. Mainline Protestants by PBS and | Afterlife beliefs among evangelical and mainline protestant children, adolescents, and adults  by the American Psychological Association). For an image representing the 2.4 billion Christians, a crucifix does not yet represent Evangelicals. An ecumenical image could be a Latin cross (like Template:Christianity sidebar and the World Council of Churches logo), a Christianity world map (Christianity percent population in each nation World Map Christian data by Pew Research.svg), both photos (Church of the Holy Sepulchre and in the The Garden Tomb), or leave blank, since the article already contains several images. Thanks for your help. My best wishes of peace and love (WikiLove).--Nathan B2 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have restored the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, since there has not been a consensus concerning what other picture to use. StAnselm (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, I this this argument is massively overplaying the Garden Tomb. StAnselm (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The Church of the Nativity picture previously used is better in my opinion. There is no disagreement among Christians among his birthplace. Completely Random Guy (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree The Church of the Nativity is a great picture for this use case. Eruditess (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Do all Christians believe that Jesus is the "Son of God"? - No.
Do all Christians believe that Jesus is the "Son of God"? The answer is a definite no. Hence, Jesus as the "Son of God" is not a central tenet of Christianity (e.g. nontrinitarianism), and thus does not belong in the introduction. My edit corrected this. User StAnselm reverted it claiming that "in fact, the "Son of God" language was carefully chosen to encompass Nontrinitarianism". How is this feasible? Cerebrality (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed a number of times before. The Nontrinitarianism article indicates that Arians, Unitarians, Christadelphians, and Jehovah's Witnesses all call Jesus the "Son of God", even though they stop short of saying that Jesus is God himself. StAnselm (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I could not find any previous discussion of this on this talk page.
 * Let me see if I am understanding you correctly: You are saying that nontrinitarianism religions all ascribe the term "Son of God" to Jesus although semantically, they do not use that term in the same way that the Trinitarianism religions do? Given this semantic distinction, the Christianity page as it is now is misleading, as it suggests (and links) to the Trinitarian semantic version of "Son of God" exclusively. A proper introduction should be cognizant of that semantic distinction. The edit I made is much more precise and addresses this, as a good introduction should. Please inform me if I am mistaken. Cerebrality (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. The Son of God (Christianity) article covers both trinitarian and nontrinitarian views: "In Christianity, the title Son of God refers to the status of Jesus as the divine son of God the Father. In Trinitarian Christianity, it also refers to his status as God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity (the Godhead) or hypostasis of the Trinity." StAnselm (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (You probably didn't use an operator. Regards,) Thinker78  (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Similarity with Mithraism
Dear Wikipedia friends please share your concerns about adding this paragraph to article:

Light prism2020 (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Given your poor writing-style at your talkpage, how did you write this? And where are the sources? And the WP:NPOV - compare Mithraism and this.  Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  03:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your valuable input. The article you referenced is indeed an excellent starting point. I've employed these sources and properly cited the relevant books and articles. Regrettably, I didn't receive a satisfactory response from the editors. Instead, they resorted to language reminiscent of the Inquisition period, rather than providing an educated, open-minded response. To expand our knowledge, it's essential to explore various perspectives and collaborate to enhance our understanding. The focus should be on constructive dialogue and improvement, rather than the indiscriminate deletion of content based on accusations.
 * Ulansey, David (11 July 1991), "The Mysteries of Mithras" ( http://dx.doi . org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195067880.003.0001), The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries, Oxford University Press, pp. 3–14, retrieved 11 October 2023 529.
 * Martye, Saint Justin. "First Apology" ( https://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/ apology1/66.html). 530.


 * Vermaseren, Maarten J.; van Essen, Carel Cl. (1 January 1965), "Preface" ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004671836_002 ), Excavations in the Mithraeum of the Church of Santa Prisca in Rome, BRILL, pp. IX– XII, ISBN 978-90-04-67183-6, retrieved 11 October 2023 531.
 * Beck, Roger (1987). "Merkelbach's Mithras" ( http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1 088197). Phoenix. 41 (3): 296. doi:10.2307/1088197 ( https://doi.org/10 . 2307%2F1088197). ISSN 0031-8299 ( https://www.worldcat.org/issn/003 1-8299). 532.
 * BESKOW, PER (1 January 1979), "BRANDING IN THE MYSTERIES OF MITHRAS?" ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004295605_028 ), Mysteria Mithrae, BRILL, pp. 487–501, ISBN 978-90-04-29560-5, retrieved 11 October 2023 534.
 * Clauss, Manfred; Gordon, Richard (25 September 2017), "Mitra and Mithras" ( http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315085333-1 ), The Roman Cult of Mithras, Routledge, pp. 3–8, ISBN 978-1-315-08533-3, retrieved 11 October 2023 535.

Light prism2020 (talk) 04:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * An absolute No! to adding it to the article. A prime example of WP:OR and also entirely WP:UNDUE. Jeppiz (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose per Jeppiz. Everything is uncited, not reliable and original research. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. Detail about this issue belongs in Mithraism, and is already there.  At the most rose-tinted optimistic, a single sentence, brief, short summary might, just might, belong in one of the History of Christianity articles, although almost certainly not that main one. But even that is doubtful. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight. I will try to add a short one in History of Christianity. Light prism2020 (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Polytheism
Doesn't trinity think that there is 3 gods? So why is this a monotheist religion? 2607:FEA8:551C:6200:9570:B4A:4A4E:777D (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Please see Trinity for an explanation. I also corrected your spelling of "polytheism" to make future searches easier. Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OKay, but for me, "one god in three persons" sounds polytheist for me, there's still three of them. 2607:FEA8:551C:6200:54DF:FACA:5E18:C3E2 (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Many moons ago when I was a teen, a youth leader gave me an explaination of the trinity that stuck with me. While this analogy is over-simplifying it, think of the trinity as an apple pie with the insides still runny. Cut the pie in three and it looks like 3 separate pieces but it's still one on the inside. Anyways, that's my 2 bits. Masterhatch (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

NOTHING about evangelicals???
How can an article on Christianity miss arguably some of the most controversial followers in all their variants? Evangelicals and evangelicalism have left their mark on the Western world, certainly the United States. Many of their number spend a tremendous anount of time on politically conservative causes including minority oppression and freedom of access to firearms. If there isn't an article on Evangelicals and evangelicalism to link to THIS one, I strongly recommend that either a major section on them be added here, or a completely NEW one should be added to Wikipedia. Evangelicals and evangelicalism have hurt many individuals in many ways and criticism of their number and schools of thought should be part and parcel of any discussion on Christianity, at least here on Wikipedia, for completeness. Wikigameshow (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The article you're after is Evangelicalism. StAnselm (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Mythology category/template?
This article falls under the purview of WikiProject:Religion and its subset WikiProject:Christianity. There is no need to keep adding a Mythology portal and talk page template to prove a WP:POINT. I have deleted it (again) and await the comments of other editors. Durziil89 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "This article falls under the purview of WikiProject:Religion" So what? The two WkiProjects are not contradicting each other. Dimadick (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But why only Christianity? Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Bahai, Buddhism, Shinto etc. don't have this Mythology project. They only have the Religion WikiProject. Durziil89 (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If the articles of those religions aren't listed as being of interest to WikiProject Mythology, they should be. All of those religions have their own mythologies. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Mythology project is not in scope here.NishantXavier (talk) 12:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

One-third, three-tenths, over three-tenths
Another editor updated the lead to state that 2.4bn is "three tenths" of the world's population; previously it read "one third". I updated to "over three tenths"; the best sources I can find peg Christianity at a consistent 31.2% to 31.4% of the world population (see for example https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/, which is cited herein). It is incorrect to peg the 2.3-2.4bn number (from 2015-20 sources) against the 2023 global population, but 31.4% is not one third. I think "almost one third" would be the best wording and least awkward. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Counts of religious people are inevitably biased upwards, due such factors as parents claiming newborn children to be religious, and people who were once in a church still stating that on a census, when they haven't attended for years. Fractions in tenths seem unnatural to me. I propose "around 30%" for our article. HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * While reputable groups like Pew try to adjust for factors like those you describe, "around 30%" works for me. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Wrong information
Jesus Christ wasn't founder of Christianity. Saint Paul was real founder of Christianity. 27.123.255.202 (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * "Who Founded Christianity? Some Say Jesus; Some Say Paul. What If Neither Did? The Answer Will Surprise You". Thinker78  (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2024
Removing the image of Joseph Smith Ilovemyawesomecat (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There is no compelling reason to remove relevant content. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Christian belief example
"Is this supposed to be taking seriously?" is the wrong question. The right question is "Does this accurately reflect worldwide Christian beliefs?" It does.

Removing my recent edit to the Beliefs section is classic gatekeeping. No reasons for reverting were provided other than the disingenuous "it was better before" and "not constructive". My edit was factual and easily supported by references elsewhere in the article, and reverting smacks of a non-neutral POV. I am undoing the revert accordingly.Struct (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Restoring the edit without discussing it here is classic WP:OWN and edit warring. Consensus is required when it is clear none exists and you will be reverted until you build said consensus. See WP:BRD for expected behavior. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's nonsense. "Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation." You're the one engaging in ownership of content. Read what I cited above. Struct (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m fine with the edit if a consensus is established. However, so far no other author has spoken in favor of retention, and two have spoken against it as either nonconstructive or worse than the prior version. I have no issue with including it if editors besides you agree to it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in bad-faith conduct here, especially by accusing me of violating 3RR when I've only reverted twice. My edit was constructive, accurate, and easily supported by references. Explicit in-line references are not necessary but I will add one or two if you really want to be tendentious. Fix, don't delete. Struct (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It presents fundamentalism as unvarnished truth. Let's not forget that thousands of people have been killed for reading the Bible "wrongly". And that even among conservative evangelicals, Christians are at each other throats over interpreting certain Bible verses. Or, as the saying goes, let's make like the Baptists and split. While I would agree with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I don't agree with stating it as unvarnished truth. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you have strong feelings about this belief. I do too. Those feelings don't matter. Wikipedia runs on logic, not emotion.
 * There's only one question that matters. Is what I added a typical Christian belief supported by dogma, doctrine, and worldwide consenus among the majority of Christian communities? Struct (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "KILL PRIDE EVERYDAY! AGREE?" doesn't stike me as what typical Christians believe. Fundamentalists, sure, but typical Christians? No. To pull back the curtain a bit, I consider myself a "typical" Christian and I'm not out there trying to kill pride. I don't gay bash or tell people I know who are gay that they're going to Hell. Look, it's like the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. People outside the Christian community pay a whole lot of attention to the 'squeaky' fundalmentalists who are making all the noise. Masterhatch (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking from a statistical, demographic approach, you are not typical. Struct (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there aren't fundamentalist Catholics or fundamentalist Eastern Orthodox, just that they are a tiny minority. So, do the math again. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When I first saw this I thought it was a joke.... Surprised that it's taking seriously by anyone. Moxy 🍁 23:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what the majority of Christians believe. It is Christian doctrine and dogma. That is fact, not opinion. Liberal/modernist Christians might disagree, but they're the detractors from the Christian mainstream. Sorry, but we're here to be accurate, not apologists. Struct (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As an atheist I'm perplexed by the image..... and see it as having zero encyclopedic value. Needless to say it won't end up being in the article. Moxy 🍁 23:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm perplexed by your being perplexed. The image is reflective of common Christian rhetoric. It is one example of terabytes, maybe even petabytes of similar extant content. It has a great deal of encyclopedic content and it absolutely will end up being in the article. Struct (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * &mdash;learn that (i) liberal Christians would be the majority of Christians, provided most Christians would understand the difference (ii) Wikipedia is not very welcoming of such comments. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't edit from a "would be" basis, I edit from a "what is" basis. You should too. Struct (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OP needs to be EXTREMELY careful accusing editors who are following established WP policy and requesting WP:BRD of bad faith. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I love how you put EXTREMELY in threatening caps. Care to explain that? Struct (talk) 23:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, it has zero encyclopedic value. Masterhatch (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? Because you don't like it? Struct (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I too thought it was a joke. Masterhatch (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Same here. Frankly I am surprised OP is taking this so seriously and casting aspersions while refusing to follow WP policy. That’s not a good way to build consensus. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please. "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy." You can stop Sealioning now if you don't mind. Struct (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do not add this contentious material to other articles as you have here. Best you move on to something more productive. Moxy 🍁 23:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not contentious. It is accurate and sourceable. If you're going to insist on revert-stalking me, I will submit a disruptive editing report. Struct (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes.... will be reverting this addition to any article you put it in. Moxy 🍁 00:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Tendentious reversions without valid justification and inaccurate bad-faith accusations of 3RR violation are not a good way to build consensus. Struct (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:1AM. See also Ideological bias on Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have proof, but I suspect that it's not one-against-many here, but one-against-many-sock-puppets. Do I need to make some checkuser requests? Struct (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha, ha, this has become risible. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It has. Go ahead and do a sock check; none will be found. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We're going to need to keep an eye on other additions .....like at Christian fundamentalism. Let's hope they drop the stick before we have to get a block. Moxy 🍁 00:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For someone who has only 200-some edits over 18 years, you seem quite knowledgable regarding policies and the inner workings of wikipedia. I'm wondering if you were included in your suggested sock check, what the results would yield? Masterhatch (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Because of how old the account was at first I thought this account was compromised.... but I think we're just being trolled. Moxy 🍁 00:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OP has been indeffed per their talk page. I think this thread can be hatred - all agreed? Jtrevor99 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say go ahead and archive it had nothing to do with building this article. Moxy 🍁 01:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Languages
There has been a fair bit of editing to and fro regarding the languages field in the infobox, and it is much better if we discuss it here and gain a consensus. It should either refer to the languages of the original texts (in which case Latin should be removed) or official non-vernacular church languages (in which case Old Church Slavonic and others need to be included as well). StAnselm (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should only include the original languages of the faith, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic (later translated to Greek in the Septuagint) and the original New Testament was written in Greek. Where Latin comes into play is according to the Sacred language Wikipage which cites the Gospel of John, "Jesus King of Jews" was inscribed upon the cross in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. I believe it's probably best to include the original languages of the faith. Latin does start to play an official role in the Church until the 4th century with Ecclesiastical Latin however I guess what we are trying to figure out is if Latin in the form of Classical Latin can be considered a language of this religion. I learn towards no. Completely Random Guy (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Page errors
The page appears to have errors resulting in not all content being displayed. It may be stemming from multiple "}}}}" sections, not closing blocks correctly. I am unable to make edits to correct this. Springy Moose (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I think a user named @Lotje tried adding some stuff, but accidentally deleted all the sections. Before reverting, let's talk to the user on what happened   water?(talk | contribs) 19:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: Some people have reverted this article back to before Lotje edited this article. He tried getting help from the village pump.   water?(talk | contribs) 04:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The problem is with an external link within from the note.
 * Interestingly, the links within the note were changed from fla text to refs; the intermediate approach, proper links using [] doesn't work within {{refn|group=note| . Something to remember in the back of your mind. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  07:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of honorific “Christ”
While I agree that, generally, WP:HONORIFIC suggests removal of honorifics except when ubiquitous or necessary for disambiguating, the honorific “Christ” is so integral to “Christianity” that it should be retained in this case. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. Masterhatch (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to see a legitimate reason why Jesus should be followed up with this non-neutral honorific in this article when he is regarded to be Christ only by adherents of Christianity. I'm not saying that it's not informative, but to the average reader who may or may not be familiar with the topic and wants to read an objective article, it does not make a good case. Chronikhiles (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The honorific “Christ” is the root of the terms “Christian”, “Christianity”, etc. It is far more than just being informative: it is foundational and the focus. Furthermore, being “neutral”, in this case, does not argue for its removal: it argues for allowing it in an article where that honorific is the whole point. Allowing it to remain does not imply WP’s endorsement of the title - it only provides an accurate reflection of the religious adherent’s viewpoint - while removal may represent anti-religious non-neutrality. As such I do not find any argument that “Christ” should be struck from “Christianity” persuasive. Other articles that do not focus on “Christ”, sure. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not a honorific, and it is not used for courtesy reasons. Christ (the "anointed one") is the title given to the expected Messiah, reflecting the ritual anointing of kings and religious leaders. Dimadick (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for Christ to be struck from Christianity, but from the historical person called Jesus, especially in the very first paragraph of the lead. The distinction between the historical Jesus and Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, is blurred here. Chronikhiles (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. It's there in the first sentence to explain where the word Christianity comes from. StAnselm (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Christianity should be considered a polytheistic religion
Because they continue to say "trinity" this should make Christianity a polytheistic religion regardless of how much Christian propagandists would like to spin it. The trinity is a repeat of what past polytheists believed in such as the Greek, Hindu and Egyptian trinity which Christians hypocritically describe as polytheistic. Elias Ziad (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not propaganda. Please familiarize yourself with Trinity to understand why you are mistaken. Your personal opinion also does not override a supermajority of RSs on the subject. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a common Islamic view of Christianity. Here is not the place to be making theological arguments. Epa101 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to argue theology on a wiki talk page as it is not relevant. Christianity is a monotheistic religion. Also, the Christian concept of the Trinity is a unique one, comparing it to certain forms of Hinduism makes some sense, but it cannot be compared to Egyptian or Greek polytheism in good faith. Besides, calling Hinduism polytheistic is only true for some sects of Hinduism. GramCanMineAway (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Some might say circling, touching, and kissing a black stone is polytheistic and also addressing Mohammed in prayers while himself not being God is polytheistic but we don't take those arguments seriously. As already stated, please familiarize yourself with the Trinity. Completely Random Guy (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That’s hilarious, according to your logic, Jews are also polytheists because they bow down to and kiss a rock wall in Jerusalem… Whilst Christians put some ridiculous spirit to the cross like it’s gonna protect them while it is just a stick. This is not just an Islamic view, but also a Jewish view that Christianity is an idol worshipping religion who worships a mere man who got humiliated by his own “creation” on a stick, look at how deluded these beliefs are. They had to invent the whole original sin doctrine to somehow prove that a “human god” died for our sins when he could have simply forgive them as he already forgave sins before Jesus since God is described as an all-merciful god… The original sin is easily debunked and disproved in the Old Testament, which collapses the entire Christian doctrine on Jesus.
 * It’s funny that you say we address Muhammad in our prayers, when we absolutely don’t and that is not our intentions. We believe Muhammad is just like any other prophet who taught his people to return to the faith of Abraham. The Quran is clear that Abraham is the most important prophet in the world as God Almighty appointed him as the “leader of all mankind.” Muhammad died like any other person. And plus, Islamic prayers are NOT monolithic, which means a Muslim can change his words in his daily prayers if the intention is to worship God. So if a Muslim feels like he is (wrongly) addressing Muhammad in his prayers, he can easily change the words to be more fitting to worshipping God alone and there is absolutely no blame for him/her. So you are wrong.Elias Ziad (talk) 19:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please let's be respectful to other people's religious beliefs. Your initial comment (and this one I'm responding to) is most unhelpful and is not conducive to a healthy discussion about whatever point you are trying to make. Insulting and casting aspersions on other people's beliefs is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and what this community is trying to achieve. You can put forward whatever argument you are trying to make without disrespecting other people's core beliefs. For the record, I'm not a Christian. In any case, this should be discussed at the Trinity article. Can someone please hat this? This is not a healthy discussion, but a POV and "propaganda" the OP is accusing others of. There are plenty of forums the OP can take their concerns or discontent about Christianity to. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Tamsier (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * }