Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro/Archive 1

This is an archive of previous discussion of what is currently paragraph 3 of the introduction. Most of this is extracted from Talk:Jesus/Archive_22. archola 10:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead section
First it was too long, now it is too short! Can we not find a happy medium? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added some general concepts of Jesus according to Christianity in the intro to provide a more general overview before moving into the more detailed sections. Aiden 04:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Aiden, I have edited your phrase twice; once today. I have no problem bringing up the concept of the Trinity in the opening paragraph, but insisting that all Christians believe is going to far.  Many are not strict Trinitarians.  I have edited it to what all, or the vast majority, of Christians can accept...that he was the Son of God.  My objective is to make it as least POV as possible.  Please explain yourself here before further reverting.  Thanks Storm Rider 18:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I restored the link to "incarnation", which is certainly appropriate; I also added a qualifier to the sentence, to make clear that it isn't necessarily universal. I didn't mention the Trinity.  I also removed the link to the immaculate conception, which is a Catholic belief not generally affirmed by the rest of the Church, and refers to Mary, not to Jesus.  KHM03 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I should have provided the link to Virgin Birth but the intro is quite satisfactory as it is in my opinion. Storm Rider, it is common knowledge that accoring to the New Testament, Jesus is both the Son of God and the human incarnation of God. Thus, I don't see how including one of the basic principles of Christianity in an introduction about the founder of said religion can be considered POV. Aiden 22:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I will dispense with the indent given the length of the thread. I have not changed the intro since KHM03 edits, which I have agreed with. As I said several times above, I sought the most basic beliefs for the opening paragraph. I still think it would be better to limit the statment to "Son of God" because all Christians agree with the statement. However, to introduce the concept of the Trinity is not necessary in the intro. It limits agreement, just as the introduction of the Immaculate Conception limits agreement (besides being off-topic). My definition of a Christian is more inclusive than most...it is those that accept Jesus as their personal Savior, that he died for thier sins, that he was resurrected the third day breaking the bonds of death that all might be resurrected; and only through Christ may all enter the presence of the Father. The concept of the Trinity is not taught in the Bible; it is a third century thought. This is not the forum for a discussion of the Trinity and its merits. Suffice it to say that, in reality, I support the majority of its thoughts and disagree with others. The Godhead is a mystery, at rare times it is as if I come close to grasping its meaning, but then it quickly excapes my grasp. I would say that it is beyond our comprehension. As a preacher would say, we can apprend, but not comprehend. Peace. Storm Rider 23:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I simply fail to see how mentioning Son of God does not constitute mention of the Trinity, but God incarnate does. I consider it a fundamental belief of Christianity, and I think most would agree, that Jesus be not only a messiah, but divine as well. If you are speaking from the viewpoint that Son of God is similair to as mentioned in Daniel, and not denoting divinity, I would consider that not within the mainstream Christian faith (hence "only begotten Son"). I feel that both aspects of Jesus are fundamental beliefs and represent both his human and divine nature. Aiden 01:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * right now, intro deals only with religious views of Jesus & does not present the breadth of the article that follows. How is "final" in "final sacrifice" explanatory? The 2nd sentence is long and, by trying to say too much in one breath, has a number of syntax problems--JimWae 01:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Aiden, I have commented and disagreed with your additions to the intro. I favor using the most basic principles of Christianity, Jesus is viewed as the Son of the God, the Messiah, the promised one of Israel.  To go further begins to complicate the intro by introducing concepts that not all Christians find accord (i.e. Jesus is God the Father).  As I have said already, this is not the forum for this discussion.  Storm Rider 09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the intro should include the most basic principles of Christianity, I interpret our source (in this case the New Testament) to explicitly state these principles to include 1) Jesus was sent by God to atone for humanity's sins 2) Acceptance of Jesus as savior is the only way to attain salvation. You have removed these references (attributed to John 3:16 and countless other versus) from the introduction for reasons I do not know. Secondly, as the gospels make statements concerning Jesus' birth, death, resurrection, etc., I consider these also basic principles, which you left in the intro. I feel that all these listed are basic principles, and that it does not make the intro too long nor does it make it POV to include briefly a general overview of these principles, as they are all key to the traditional Christian belief of Jesus. Aiden 17:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The main issue seems to be that the idea that Jesus was "God incarnate" is not a universal basic principle, but is in fact much debated, and as such, presenting it in the lead of the article as "traditional faith" is too POV. 


 * The Incarnation has been the traditional Christian belief since at least the fourth century. It was a mainline Christian belief before then, but became explicitly stated when the church developed a concise statement of faith. Both the Western (Catholic and Protestant) and Eastern (Orthodox) branches abide by the Nicene Creed, although the branches continue to debate the "proceed" clause. The creed explicitly states that Jesus is God the Son incarnate. This statement is backed by Bible verses (see below). If it wasn't, the statement wouldn't have been accepted as creed. It is true that there are religous bodies identifying as Christian that do not accept this belief, however these bodies aren't always recognized as Christian by mainline churches. archola 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems as if people have an issue with presenting in the introduction the believe that Jesus is God according to mainstream Christianity and that Jesus is a sacrifice for humanity's sins. Here are just a few of the versus that I believe illustrate these principles.


 * Concerning Jesus as a sacrifice for sins:


 * Hebrews 2:17: "For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people." (NIV)


 * Hebrews 9:15: "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance -- now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (NIV)


 * Hebrews 9:28: "So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." (NIV)


 * Concerning Jesus as human incarnation of God:


 * John 1:1,14: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (KJV)


 * John 8:58: "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (KJV)


 * John 10:30: "I and my Father are one." (NIV)


 * John 14:9: "Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?" (KJV)


 * Titus 2:13: "while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," (NIV)


 * 1 John 20:28: "And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God." (KJV)


 * Aiden 18:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The existance of the nontrinitarian article and the Opposing views sections of Trinity and the devotees of groups that do not hold the belief that Jesus is God is more than enough to keep this from being presented as a factual statement in the first paragraph of the article. If you want to make it such that it says 'this belief is held by the majority of Christians', or something along those lines, fine. Just as long as it's not presented in such a way that this is the only viewpoint. All those scriptures presented (and interpreted) above have well-formed counter points and there is a long list of scriptures that back up the view that Jesus was not God. This is not the place to discuss either. You simply cannot state up front that this is a fact or the way everyone believes. That's all the issue is. 

Is anyone opposed to somethign along the lines of saying that mainstream Christianity hold that....? Oh and who are these "Christians" sects that don't believe that? I'd be interested in knowing for my own info. Thanks.Gator (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And calling these groups "sects" in such a manner is very POV. 
 * Lol. Oh please.Gator (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's my question as well, Gator. It seems that even though we preface these principles with "According to traditional Christian faith..." and "Christians generally believe..." some still have an issue with what are obviously Biblical principles. Aiden 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's just the point, "obvious" to you and your interpretation, others see that it's obvious in the Bible that Jesus wasn't God. Because of this, you can't push it as universal in the introductory section of article. 


 * KHM03, You're saying that the view that Jesus was not a sacrifice for humanity's sins is "traditional, quite mainstream, & quite prevalent"? How? Aiden 19:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

(see below) KHM03 19:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, you have changed the introductory paragraph and I reverted your changes several times with explanations. Let’s go over it one more time with the goal of coming to a conclusion: 1)  It is the introductory paragraph and should be kept to the most fundamental tenants of Christianity.  This means keep it so simple that there is no chance for disagreement.  All Christians agree that he was the son of God.  2)  The introductory paragraph is not the place to quote scripture. There is more to the Gospel than John 3:16. Nor is WIKI the place to quote scripture. As Oscillate stated well above, there are well formed scriptural references that would cast doubt on some of your statements and WIKI is not a place for scripture bashing. The fact that there is disagreement is reason enough to keep the introductory paragraph simpler than your proposal.

Please note that I am limiting these comments to the INTRODUCTION. I encourage you to make the same comments, but do it later in the body of the article. My disagreement is just as much about style as about content. I understand that you have deeply held convictions and my intentions are not to invalidate them. I can rejoice in them with you, but please attempt to grasp the distinction I am making about the purpose of an introductory paragraph and the body of the article. Storm Rider 01:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, as I state above, the tradition of Jesus as God the Son incarnate dates back to at least the 4th century (see Nicene Creed). That's the "tradition" in "traditional Christian beliefs." The creed was of course based on Biblical principles as recognized at the time. It is true that not all churches believe in the Nicene Creed, but then in what way can they be called traditional or even mainstream? archola 00:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, you are right and that is just the point...it is 4th century thought and doctrine. No, you are not right, Jesus never taught the Trinity; it was a concept developed later.  Yes, I am familiar with the verses in the Bible that would support that issue, but you will also find just as many that would not support that position.  If this was an article limited to the group with the most adherents, hang it up and call the Catholic Jesus.  Fortunately, this article is not limited to that construct.


 * This is like talking to brick walls sometimes. Does anybody get the concept of limiting the Introduction to simple statements and expanding upon those statements in the body of the article.  Put your committed beliefs aside, this does not slight them, it is not meant to invalidate them.  Do you lose anything by limiting the introduction to simple statements?  Is your position invalidated?  Does it belittle your faith?  Whether one considers those who do not support the concept of the Trinity is a great subject for another article, but it is not the place for this article.  Do you find any difficulty in expanding upon your position later in the article?  In doing so, all of us can be happy with the article rather than it be one sided.  Storm Rider 01:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think it's too POV, why not attribute the Son of God/Incarnation belief to Nicene Christianity and note that there are non-Nicene groups that would disagree. I'm sure this could be done as a simple statement in the Introduction without offending anyone's beliefs. BTW I am a Lutheran, so obviously I don't agree with many Catholic beliefs. But I don't mind reading that Catholics believe what they believe, that seems NPOV enough to me. The intro already briefly states Muslim and Bahá'í beliefs, so a short sentence or two indicating the range of Christian positions seems in order here. Again, I'm sure that be can done simply: just state there are Nicene and non-Nicene beliefs, and indicate the difference. Perhaps you can link Nicene to Nicene Creed or a similar article so that those interested can follow the issue there—but I still think a brief statement acknowledging the issue is important to the introduction here. archola 02:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So you think an Introductory paragraph should give a summary of all the beliefs of Jesus rather than obtaining a full explanation in the body of the document. You also misinterpret my comments.  I tend to find far more in common with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox than with Protestants.  My issue is not about respect of one's religion.  It is about keeping an introductory paragraph limited to simple statements.  Instead of sidestepping everyone one of my questions, WHAT IS LOST BY LIMITING THE PARAGRAPH TO READ AS FOLLOWS:  "According to traditional Christian faith, Jesus is the Son of God.  Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the right hand of God until the Second Coming."?  When you introduce scripture, John 3:16, not even Catholics would limit being saved to that sole scripture.  The Gospel of Christ is more than that; NOTE, I don't disagree with the statement, it is just incomplete.  An introductory paragraph should not have to discuss all the different nuances of views of Christ...that is the purpose of the body of the document.  What am I missing; did anyone study composition in school?  This really is not complicated.  Storm Rider 06:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to find far more in common with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox than with Protestants.
 * That should be a BIG BRIGHT FLASHING warning signal. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "According to traditional Christian faith, Jesus is the Son of God.
 * Somewhat. You run into Arian and agnostic and reform christians pretty fast. Some believe in a genetic son of god, some believe in an ordained son of god, some believe in a "called" son of god, no different than any other human.. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin,
 * Again, uhm, no. Different texts specify an unmarried woman, a maiden, a child too young to give birth, and an unmarried woman. Different christians attach different meanings. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * crucified and buried,
 * This seems common to me Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * resurrected on the third day of death
 * There's an argument about that, too. It may be four days, 8 days, or seven. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the right hand of God until the Second Coming."?
 * "How can he be at the right hand of god if he *is* god"... welcome to the Trinitarianism debates. They're pretty old. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What am I missing; did anyone study composition in school? This really is not complicated.
 * You may be missing out on a massive amount of biblical scholarship, or religious studies or education in greek, aramaic, and hebrew. I don't know. Maybe you haven't been exposed to texts beyond study of how to teach your particular versions of your faith. Maybe you don't know about the Q, or Sayings, or the other works involved in generating the texts we have left today. Maybe you haven't been exposed to the vast number of religions that reject prior beliefs.
 * Suffice to say that we need to treat this article based on all religions and beliefs that consider Jesus important to their faith. Ronabop 08:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "So you think an Introductory paragraph should give a summary of all the beliefs of Jesus rather than obtaining a full explanation in the body of the document."
 * Um, both, not rather. I feel an introductary paragraph should introduce, with simple statements, and a summary is an appropriate way to do that. The body of the document should develop the ideas further, ie, offer a full explanation. Yes, I have Bachelor's degrees in English and Journalism, so I did study composition. I'm sorry if I misunderstand your point, Storm Rider, but I feel that an introduction can be both simple and comprehensive no matter what the subject. Journalists do it all the time; good journalists do, anyway. Ronabop's also got some good points. The article needs to address the range of "beliefs that consider Jesus important" or it will always be POV. A good introduction can do this and still be structurally simple. To put it even more simply: why not do both? archola 09:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I contributed the general information in the introduction for INTRODUCTORY purposes. It is not meant to outline a detailed account of Jesus as other sections do (and should.) It outlines basic concepts of Jesus according to mainstream Christianity just as the Vishnu article does in relation to Hinduism, the Moses article does in relation to Judaism, and the Muhammad article does in relation to Islam: (I could go on.)


 * Muhammed, and sometimes Mahomet (Latin Mahometus), following the Latin or Turkish), is believed by mainstream Muslims to be God's final prophet sent to guide mankind with the message of Islam. He is referred to as "The Prophet" (in Arabic النبي) within the faith.

Exactly why it is not suitable to generally describe the subject's position in the related religion still has not been explained in any way other than that you don't like it there. And to my chagrin I make note that you have only raised this issue in the article concerning Jesus. The Background and subsequent sections are meant to provide a more detailed account of the subject and such introductory information belongs in the introduction. Try looking at some other online or printed encyclopedias if you don't understand this concept. Aiden 22:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since when was this article only about Christianity? Muhammed isn't a figure in Christianity, hence it doesn't say anything about Christians' view of him in the introductory section. I see, even in the introductory paragraph, where Jesus is an important figure in other religions. Why must you insist on having that info in the introductory article, it work great in the Background or Christian views sections, but not in the introduction. The fact that Jesus is considered to be the Messiah and the Son of God in Christianity is enough of an introduction, quoting scripture and all that can be done elsewhere. Especially when what you have there is debatable by various Christians. Stop putting it back. 

Did I say it was only about Christianity? No. I said general information according to Christianity should be included in the introduction as Jesus is the central figure of Christianity. This applies to the countless other articles on religious figures, where general information according to the relevant religion is provided in the introduction. As the introduction stated, Jesus plays important roles in other religions, but is not a central figure. If you would like, simply remove the reference to John 3:16 if you have a problem with explaining why Christians view Jesus as atonement for sins. But this removal of extremely relevant and general information amounts to nothing less than vandalism in my mind. If you insist on maintaining double-standards, I feel we may need the arbitration committee to rule on the issue. Aiden 22:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed "Nicene" revision
Current version: "According to traditional Christian faith, Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to atone for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Christ saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the right hand of God until the Second Coming."

Proposed revision: "Christians who follow the Nicene Creed believe that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to atone for humanity's sins, and that acceptance of Jesus as Christ saves one from sin. They believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the right hand of God until the Second Coming. However, there are also Christian groups who reject the Nicene Creed as a misinterpretation of scripture."

This is just a rough draft, but I believe it is both relatively simple and relatively comprehensive. It explicity mentions the tradition behind "traditional Christianity" and sounds less POV than "Christians generally believe." I considered making reference to the Trinitarian/Nontrinitarian distinction, but Trinitarian thought is only part of the Nicene Creed. Of course, the issue can be discussed more fully under Jesus, and in related articles such as Nicene Creed, Trinitarianism and Nontrinitarianism.

Any comments? archola 12:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, the introduction is prefaced with "According to traditional Christian faith..." Ronabop's mention of “Arian and agnostic and reform Christians” does not reflect "traditional Christian faith" in this sense. Those alternative views should be noted in a separate section; this introduction should include basic principles that mainstream Christians believe. Stating Jesus is the "Son of God", while quite agreeable to most Christians, does not fully illustrate mainstream belief. Such a term does not denote the divinity of Jesus that most Christians accept. In fact, the term was used in the Tanakh several times without such meaning. Thus, in order to illustrate a fundamental belief in traditional Christianity, as based on scripture, it must be noted that most Christians, termed "mainstream" or "traditional Christianity," believe Jesus was both the Son of God and human incarnation of God. I feel the introduction in its current state illustrates this without engaging in a Trinitarian debate. No change is needed. Aiden 20:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Until you reverted it back, it was so much better with the disputed part in the Background section instead of the introductory paragraph. As long as you keep insisting on keeping that information there, when it really works better in another part of the article, this debate will not go away. The revision by Anonymous editor was much better than what you keep putting in. The introductory paragraph is not supposed to be so explanatory, nor put forth disputed ideas, whether they are mainstream or not in your opinion. The article is not who Jesus is in Christianity alone anyway. 


 * Yes, "According to traditional Christian faith" meaning those churches that affirm the tradition that the Nicene Creed is the correct interpretation of scripture. It's also the most widely accepted creed, ergo "mainstream Christians" and "Christians generally believe." I was just trying to clarify what we mean by "traditional", "mainstream" and "generally" in this context. If that's not what you meant by these terms, then it demonstrates that some may find these terms vague. OTOH, if it is what you meant, than what's the harm in the change? Clarifying that there are groups identifying as Christian that are neither traditional nor mainstream in this sense simply lends balance to the statement (ie, NPOV). Beyond that, I feel that the statement looks fine under the either the Introduction or the Background section. To me, "Background" is also introductory. archola 22:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all "general information" has to go in the introduction, especially what is being considered. Why must it be in the intro and not in Background? Why are you being so difficult about this? You're insisting on putting statements that are debated even by Christians into the opening paragraph. If you want to call an arbitration committee, great, I think everyone here would be happy to put an end to this constant reverting and needless discussion. It's not necessary, though. It's a fine solution to keep that info in the Background section, and is nothing anywhere near "vandalism." 

I'm trying to maintain consistency within articles. Just as the other articles on religious figures, this article should include some of the fundamental concepts of Jesus according to Christianity in the introduction. I feel Archola's suggestions are a good beginning to a discussion and compromise, but I won't accept this complete gutting of the intro because it doesn't fit your POV. There are several concepts outlined in the introduction that I think we can say safely ALL Christians by definition must accept, so your all-or-nothing approach certainly is not well-founded. Further details need to be in seperate sections, but the general info that was in the introduction is just that, general info. Aiden 23:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Aiden, please review the entire conversation we have been having. You really think it deleting a small phrase is a "complete gutting" of the intro???  With a straight face tell me you actually don't feel you are not the one with a POV that is intractable or inflexible?  I think I can agree with you, given your total unwillingness to compromise than an arbitrator is needed.  BTW, who else is drawing lines in the sand?  Pull your head and realize this is WIKI, a public forum where one's personal views are not the end all of all conversations.  Traditional Christianity is not the total defnition of Christianity.  If anything Ronabop demonstrated above the diverse and comlex concepts found within Christianity.  When you push so hard for your specific views, then everyone else needs to get their views included to achieve balance.  If you have been paying attention to this article you will have noticed that the intro paragraph was recently "clipped" in an attempt to make it less wordy and basic.  With your continued inflexibility it will become a huge paragraph.  What do you lose by putting your phrase in the body?


 * As an aside, this same dispute has been a topic in various other articles; check out Christian and Christianity. In many ways I can agree with the doctrine you are insisting on putting in the intro, it is just that I seek to have a more basic intro and then provide a complete description of those beliefs in the body.  Storm Rider 23:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There are several concepts outlined in the introduction that I think we can say safely ALL Christians by definition must accept - I and many others highly disagree to this. That's the point here, you keep saying these things are without contestation, when they are. And no one said all-or-nothing. A simple statement is fine and it can be elaborated upon later. 


 * I've added Archola's proposed Nicene revision to the introduction (with disclaimer at the end of the paragraph.) I hope this provides some accord on the introduction. It seems to have satisfied Anonymouse editor. I also find it satisfactory. Please discuss. Aiden 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Aiden, DID YOU SEE ANY ACCORD IN ANY OF THE DISCUSSION ABOVE??? ARE YOU "LISTENING" TO WHAT ANYONE SAYS???  I CAN SEE NO EVIDENCE OF EITHER!  Why should anyone discuss anything?  Let's just have an edit war and wait to see who gets blocked first?  You have violated the 3RR multiple times without suffering any consequences; that will not last.  Please save me the time of accusing me of threatening you, I am not.  It is just the rules of WIKI and they have been ignored to date in your case.  Storm Rider 06:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why I was content to leave it here on the talk page for now, although I appreciate Aiden's support. Some found the shorter intro to be incomplete or misleading. Some disagree with Aiden's version. Rather than debate theological points, I find it more productive to acknowledge that different Christian groups have different understandings of Jesus. I believe the main point of contention to between Nicene/Non-Nicene congregations. As the introduction stands now, it does not seem too long to me. It does discuss Christian views a little more than Islam or Bahá'í, but I believe that to be because Christian views of Jesus differ enough to complicate the issue. As far as I know, Shi'ites and Sunnis do not debate the nature of Isa, but let me know if I'm mistaken. archola 07:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Storm Rider, what exactly is your problem? Archola's suggestion was a perfect compromise and you still complain. Oh, and you just broke the no yelling rule. Aiden 07:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Aiden, my friend, conversation with you seems to be impossible. You do not listen to others and then have the audacity to ask "what the problem" is when people don't do exactly as you want them. I don't see any further reason to converse. Oh, and I was not yelling, I was screaming at the top of my lungs trying to get you to listen. You have proven that listening and compromise is beyond your current ability. Good luck. Storm Rider 08:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I should point out that Storm Rider's "According to those who support the Nicene Creed" is closer to my original "Christians who follow the Nicene Creed believe" construction. Nicene Christianity is a redirect to First Council of Nicaea, but Storm Rider's revision makes it clear that we mean more than just the fourth century Church. I also agree that we should keep the sentence about those who don't recognize the creed. The last two sentences are not redundant. Rather, the paragraph follows the classical thesis, antithesis, synthesis rhetorical form. archola 09:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood. I was just concerned that the use of "those who follow the Nicene Creed" may appear to those less familiar with Christianity as if Nicene Creed followers are not Christian. Perhaps we should use your original proposal of "Christian who follow the Nicene Creed..." Secondly, Storm Rider, I was saying I hope instituting the compromise Archola suggested would bring accord, in case you misunderstood me.
 * One more thing: As the Nicene Creed article states, the creed is accepted by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Coptic, Nestorian, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and most Protestant churches. Thus, I think it should be in some way noted in the first sentence mentioning the creed that the vast majority of Christians accept it, which I why I had "According to mainstream Christianity..." there originally. Perhaps, "Most Christians believe..." or "Most Christians, followers of the Nicene Creed, believe..." Aiden 17:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. However, I reworked the introduction to accomodate those who desire a simpler lead, while keeping the more nuanced discussion of Christian views as a second paragraph. I've also provided a link to Christology for those who want to study the issues in more detail. archola 00:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Archola. Intro is general yet informative, well-rounded, and NPOV. Aiden 04:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I was wondering if Midnite Critic was correct to limit my Restorationism reference to merely Latter Day Saints. I don't know enough about Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, et al to know if MR was accurate. I must plead ignorance on this one. Anyone care to comment? archola 04:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind, Midnite Critic answered below. archola 06:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the last sentence in the opening back to the more neutral statement "Other Christians" without identifying churches or members. My reasoning is twofold: 1)  the intro begins by identifying Christians that believe in the Nicene Creed.  Then moves to those who don't accept the Nicene Creed, but qualifying it as "self-identified" as Christians.  This is POV; although I am fully aware of the many groups that attempt to limit the definition of Christianity to those who only believe in the Nicene Creed, I have yet met anyone on this earth capable of "knowing" one's heart.  2)  In attempting to limit those who don't believe in the Nicene Creed to JW's and Mormons, you do so without any reference. Further, you undermine the vast numbers of people who worship Christ, but do not practice within organized religion. In addition, you are speaking of a Church's doctrine, not the beliefs of their members. Does anyone actually believe that all members of any church believe all doctrines taught by that church? In truth, I am not aware of any study that identifies all people who believe in the Nicene Creed and those who don't. Keep the paragraph limited to what we know, and in keeping with the statement that beliefs are diverse and complex; there are Christians who believe in the Nicene Creed and those who don't.  Storm Rider 02:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. The list of beliefs are all affirmed by the creed, so I thought it might be less vague to identify (for want of a better term) non-Nicenean Christian beliefs beyond just saying that "other Christians disagree." It just seems odd to me to define a subject by what it is not. My initial reference was incorrect, but either way I did not mean to imply that these were the ONLY examples. Midnite Critic did the rest, including the "self-identified" qualification. archola 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * On taking another look, the first part of the paragraph identifies "Most Christians" rather than particular Churches, so for the sake of balance the last sentence shouldn't reference particular bodies either. But there's always this section of the Nicene Creed article, which does list four bodies in particular (again, probably not a complete list). For myself, mea culpa. Others will have to speak for themselves. archola 03:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My objective from the beginning was to present/have a very brief introduction. I honestly feel that Christianity is diverse and complex and to attempt to summarize those characteristics up in the Nicene Creed is folly at best.  However, that is what we now have.  We could enlarge upon exactly how the other peoples, such as muslims, feel about Jesus rather than the limited statement we currently have, but I am not a resource for such editing.  Archola, I appreciate the cooperation we share; thank you.  Storm Rider 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I can certainly adhere to my own Nicenean beliefs (and recognize them as such) while still recognizing that there are other viewpoints. I'm not sure if it's possible to have a very brief introduction without being simplistic. Any article on Jesus is going to bring up Christian views rather quickly, and that is indeed a diverse and complex subject. archola 08:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

With the Islamic details moved up this morning (I believe by JamieHughes), the intro is starting to get long again. Is everyone fine with that, or...? archola 16:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine I guess. I only pause to ponder what would happen if we put the Christian/Jewish view of Muhammed (most consider him a false prophet) in the intro to that article, however. I'm sure there would be fireworks. Aiden 19:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Undoubedly, although neither the New Testement nor the Tanakh/Old Testement mention Muhammed by name. The Koran (er, Qur'an) does mention Isa. Hence the difference.


 * Darn, this talk page is taking forever to load. archola 01:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Lead section: Atonement
Mentioning the atoning mission of Jesus is fine, but let's not tie ourselves down to any one particular theory of the atonement. That would be quite POV. KHM03 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are several prominent theories of the atonement. While I personally subscribe to the governmental theory, which is sacrificial in nature, others are less so.  It's a very Western idea, and not nearly as prominent in the East...which, in terms of historic continuity, is about as "traditional" as one can get.  KHM03 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How is it POV to strictly interpret the New Testament, the definitive source for Christian views on Jesus? In many places it is explicitly stated Jesus atoned for humanity's sins as a sacrifice through his death.


 * Hebrews 2:17: "For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people." (NIV)


 * Hebrews 9:15: "For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance -- now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant." (NIV)


 * Hebrews 9:28: "So Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." (NIV)


 * The point is that these other "theories" do not represent a mainstream view. Aiden 19:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

These views have been mainstream for 2000 years (see Orthodox Christianity for starters...or read up on the ransom view of the atonement), and are quite traditional. We can mention the atonement...that's great...but let's not favor any one particular interpretation of that doctrine or any one interpretation of the Scriptures. Some of the most brilliant minds in the civilized world have wrestled with these issues and not come up with one definitive answer. Let's be POV, accurate, and fair. Thanks...KHM03 20:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Sacrifice, yes. This is traditional and biblical. But what is the meaning of sacrifice? Sacrifice does not necessarily imply "satisfaction" or "propitiation" any more than "to atone" means, in and of itself, "to satisfy" or "to propitiate." This is an anachronism, reading Anselmian and later categories into what came long before. "To sacrifice" simply means "to sanctify by offering to God" and implies, when dealing with a living subject, that the subject is killed. --Midnite Critic 05:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

non-trinitarians and restorationists
I changed the reference, referring to Mormons and JW's as examples of groups which reject the Nicene Creed and the Trinity (which pretty much comes to the same thing; I can't think of any group which accepts the Creed and rejects the Trinity, although many groups, among them trinitarian restorationists, would reject the notion of the binding nature of the creed while accepting the Trinity and therefore, the creed's contents, at least with regard to the statements concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) and dropping the reference to restorationists. Most restorationist groups, such as the Churches of Christ, Christian Churches, Disciples of Christ, et. al., are in fact trinitarians. However, the Latter Day Saint strand is not, at least the Mormon Church and its offshoots are not (Not sure where the Community of Christ, formerly the RLDS Church, stands; they may be). The SDA Church is trinitarian, if not exactly creedal, and not restorationist. JW's are not trinitarian, creedal, OR "restorationist". --Midnite Critic 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"'I can't think of any group which accepts the Creed and rejects the Trinity,'"
 * Me neither, but there are non-Nicene trinitarian formulas, so they're not exactly the same thing. (This is why I proposed "Nicene" rather than "Trinitarian.") However, thank you for clearing up the introduction. As I said above, I must plead ignorance. More specifically, I may have misunderstood the Restorationist concept of the Great Apostasy. archola 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Community of Christ, formerly the RLDS church, is trinitarian. Baptists are traditionally non-creedal, but are Trinitarian.

We are discussing what churches believe, but I would still offer that what chruches teach and what members believe are two different things. I believe it is always best to clarify what churches teach while leaving room for what Christians believe. I am not sure I know many people who believe every single doctrine taught by a given church; very few actually know all the doctrines of their respective churches. When we only describe what churches believe, we ignore the actual beliefs of many, many Christians.

When discussing LDS theology, one must be careful. They worship one God, the Father. They approach the Father through his Son, Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit, the third member of the Godhead teaches all mankind the truthfulness of the Gospel of Christ. He is the second comforter promised by Christ. There is one Godhead manifested in three separate, distinct personages, but one in purpose. They do not believe in creeds and view them as the doctrines of men created by men. Scripture teaches, but he Spirit reveals the truth to mankind. They/we seek to be as Peter when Christ said, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. They appear subtle differences, but there definitely differences.  Storm Rider 07:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Good job, and nice summary. Ronabop 08:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Does Nicene Creed say acceptance of Jesus is a condition of being saved?
Intro has
 * Most Christians, affirming the Nicene Creed, believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).

Aside from being a tortured sentence that sorely needs at least a couple of "that"s or, better yet, needs to be split up, the Nicene Creed does not say acceptance of Jesus is a condition of being saved. It may, in one of its forms, say he came to save people - but it does not say acceptance is needed. This is a presentation of beliefs of one variety of Xty - and does not even accurately reflect the beliefs of the single variety that has the most members (Catholicism) --JimWae 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ''We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
 * ''the only Son of God,
 * ''eternally begotten of the Father,
 * ''God from God, light from light,
 * ''true God from true God,
 * ''begotten, not made,
 * ''of one Being with the Father;
 * ''through him all things were made.
 * ''For us and for our salvation
 * ''he came down from heaven,
 * ''was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
 * ''and became truly human.
 * ''For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
 * ''he suffered death and was buried.
 * ''On the third day he rose again
 * ''in accordance with the Scriptures;
 * ''he ascended into heaven
 * ''and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
 * ''He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
 * ''and his kingdom will have no end.
 * -excerpted from second paragraph of Nicene Creed. As you can see, the paragraph starts out by stating "We believe..." (or in your terminology and several translations, "we accept") and then has a shopping list of items about Christ, including that he came down to save people and was killed etc etc.  To my knowledge the Catholic church today, and I believe the Lutheran church as well, still explicitly adheres to the Nicene creed.  Any Catholics out there, please let me know otherwise. pookster11 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say belief or acceptance is a condition of salvation? Catholics do not believe acceptance is either sufficient or necessary --JimWae 01:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, acceptance of the Nicene creed is a condition to enter the membership of the church and thereby a condition to obtaining salvation. Depends on who you read and talk to.  But yes, you are correct, personal belief in Christ, according to the Catholic church, is not enough to obtain salvation; one must be catechumized and made an actual "member" of the church in order to be included amoungst the saved.  Anyway thats my knowledge from a scholastic study of the Roman Catholic church (which I must admit is mostly from the early medieval and late antiquity period).  Once again, if anyone knows otherwise please post it here. pookster11 01:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The sentence does not say it's a "condition", merely that "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin." Concision is desirable here, not convolution. Paul B 01:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Not all Christians have even heard of the Nicene creed nor does it represent the prime definition of Christianity, just because the Nicene creed might not literally say that we must accept Christ, (Though considering it says "we believe in" one would think acceptance of Christ would follow) does not mean Christianity does not. Also, belief about something does not imply accepting something, but belief in something does, if you believe in someone to help you, you are accepting that the person will help you, if you believe that you will get a good grade on a math test, you are accepting the idea that you will get a good grade on your math test, I don't see the problem here. Also, the Bible never specifies that formally joining a church is a pre-requisite to being saved, it better not be, or I am dead....quite literally, I assure you. Homestarmy 01:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the Nicene creed is the earliest and most widely accepted and utilized definition of what it is to be a Christian and was for hundreds of years defined what teachings were and were not canonical. Whether it has anything to do with your beliefs or not is beside the point; when referencing the Christian belief in Christ, it is completely acceptable to reference back to the Nicene cred because most, if not all, of the beliefs around Christ and the Christian church devolve from the creed and the Nicean council. pookster11 01:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What im trying to say is that it is not the only definition of Christianity, so therefore, any arguments saying it does not ask people to accept Christ do not invalidate every single part of the Bible where belief IN Christ is mandated for salvation. Though im not sure how people are making this kind of argument anyway. Homestarmy 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, the Nicene Creed does not say "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16)". Stuffing it in the intro, besides leading to truly awful syntax, is needless partisanship even within Xty. --JimWae 04:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Point taken. The problem seems to be that last part, to which your point is correct that "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16)" is not universal to Xtianity and Xtian beliefs.  Other than the last sentence, which seems to be doctrinal in nature, the rest I think is a nice summary (barring any cleanup).  What about you? pookster11 05:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can anyone find something from Catholic Doctorine which specifically states that actually accepting Christ isn't necessary? That sounds extremely far-fetched, the Dark Ages were a long time ago, I know the Church sometimes has some issues even today, but still. Homestarmy 14:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * see Talk:Jesus/Archive_19 & . Why does it take a non-Christian to point this out? --JimWae 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I get it now :(. The reason that it would take a non-Christian to point it out is because it really seems crazy, what the pope essentially is doing there is supporting a pretty much Islamic lifestyle as an alternative to devoting all of an instant period of time to accept Christ. In Islam, it is the balance of your good deeds vs. evil deeds that Islamics claim makes one get into heaven, (Believing in the Qu'ran is also something they supposedly claim helps) yet in the Bible, an increadibly large amount of references are made that this is ridiculous, and you must be saved through faith in Christ, (John 3:16) (Ephesians 2:8-9) (John 14:6) (Romans 3:22) (Romans 5:1-2) etc. etc., stuff like whats at this site. So what the Pope was doing is pretty saddening if it's true. The thing is, if you believe in something to give you something, and then don't accept it, what is the point? Let's say I believed in my calculater to give me the answer to 2+2, and it gave out the number 4. If I didn't accept that answer and said that the real answer is 42, then it would be totally wrong. So if you believe in Christ but refuse to accept the gift of eternal life which comes through Him, (You've got to accept Him to get it, the Bible is pretty clear it is through Him, not around Him or something) What part of the Bible says that Jesus will force this eternal salvation upon you even when you don't want to accept Him? It sounds like the Pope was disagreeing not just with the Bible, but with the Nicene creed, all for the sake of, what, that article said placating other peoples? Homestarmy 21:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems this has touched a POV nerve here? If there are many roads to a goal, one road could be the main road - while others could have obstacles, but still get you there. People can receive gifts without even knowing it. It's not just the pope's view either - see archives --JimWae 21:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But that's just it, what im showing is that the Bible does say there is only one road to the goal, and you can't simply not know you've recieved the gift of eternal life, being born again (John 3) isn't something you just kinda don't realize at first, even if it is spiritual. Homestarmy
 * Catholics also do not take the Bible literally, and you seem to be verging on either anti-Catholicism or Original research --JimWae 22:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't look at me, I didn't write the Bible. And as I understand it, the Catholic church is a very diverse group, especially once you cross the atlantic, as I understand it, things change rapidly. Why can't any Catholic decide to take the Bible literally, i've heard plenty of them just plain come out and say they don't agree with the Pope compleatly on things, I don't just stay inside all the time :/. Homestarmy 22:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The phrase in question is noted as being the belief of the majority of Christians, in which acceptance of Jesus saves one from sin. It does not say it is a universal view. Many of the views which can be described as majority views are enumerated in the Nicene creed, which is mentioned because it simply provides a summary of the most common Christian beliefs. The sentence does not say ALL majority views are listed in the creed, but that most Christians, who happen to believe the Nicene Creed, believe this and this. Many sentences can be denoted as mentioning sacrifice for sins, such as "''For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven... For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate..." —Aiden 22:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Catholics are nearly half of the Xians in the world . The introduction is no place to present views about Xty that are not overwhelmingly accepted. There's a bit of difference between saying "Jesus saved us" and "Believers in Jesus are saved"--JimWae 04:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For the Roman Catholics, Orthodox and similar Christian groups, intellectual belief in Jesus is not required for salvation in all cases. For instance, in the case of infant baptism, someone else believes on the infant's behalf. Similar cases might include adults who lack the mental capacity to believe or disbelieve in a particular creed. Of course this is different than the case of someone who does have the mental capacity and information, yet chooses to believe something quite different. Wesley 03:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do they perhaps try to back this up with anything in particular or take a more Universalist approach to looking at things to arrive at these conclusions? Homestarmy 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Does God have 2 hands and a face?
The intro uses "right hand" of God -- this is a needless additional "detail" to saying Jesus is in heaven with God. It assumes God is bilateral - something few theologians assert with any certainty. Perhaps this is just figurative language. If so, it may be appropriate for Sunday school & parables, but it does not belong in an introduction to a basic encyclopedia article about Jesus -- scare quotes or not --JimWae 20:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh for heaven's sake. That's what it says in the Bible. Yes, it's figurative. You think it's dumb? Well, so do I. Who cares? Paul B 21:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please remember Wikipedia policy: no personal attacks.
 * I do think you might be reading into it a little too much JimWae. I wouldn't have noticed something like that. Deskana (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What personal attck? Please remember Wikipedia policy assume good faith policy.Paul B
 * It seemed like a personal attack to me, considering I would have been offended had someone asked "Who cares?" when I attempted to state my viewpoint. Deskana (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I can't say what you are likely to be offended by, but "who cares" is clearly addressed to both no-one and everyone, and is therefore by definition not personal. Note that I included myself ("I do too") before the comment in question, which further emphasised its non-personal nature by saying I shared a lackof sympathy with the imagery. Paul B 02:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Christian views of Jesus
Since there is revision of this article being done, I would like to suggest some minor changes to this paragraph. First of all, it is problematic to state that Jesus was "a part" of the Holy Trinity. One might say that He was a "member" of the Holy Trinity or the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. The Trinity is not divided into "parts." Secondly, mention should be made in this section about the orthodox Christian doctrine of the two natures in Christ. This does not have to be detailed, but it makes the difference clearer between those who affirm the deity of Christ and those who deny it. drboisclair 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 (Christian views)
And I've copied previous discussion on the third paragraph to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro. The archive dates back to Jan. 8, when the paragraph was added to the intro.

I don't mean to jump the gun, but when we are ready to move on, we might want to review the previous discussion. archola 10:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A few introductory comments. The paragraph as it stands represents a compromise. We tried to come up with a description broad enough to cover all forms of Christianity. The reference to the Nicene Creed is mine; it acknowledges the historic and ongoing distinction between Nicene Christianity and its descendents on the one hand, and other forms of Christianity on the other. It also acknowledges that the beliefs expressed in the creed are widely, but not universally, accepted. Since "other forms of Christianity" includes the various historical lost Christianities (citation: Bart D. Ehrman, Talk:Jesus), it also provides a link to the previous paragraph's discussion of historicity. "Other forms" also refers to modern Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Oneness Pentacostals, and other bodies outside of the Nicene tradition, as well as some Christians outside of organized religion. archola 17:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

PS:The full title of Ehrman's book mentioned above is The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. archola 17:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend that anyone who has suggested changes read the Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro discussion. Then, in respect of the comprimise, that a discussion be undertaken here, and, unless it reaches consensus, the main page not be edited. --CTSWyneken 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

John 3:16
I don't want to get into a debate over interpretations of the Nicene Creed, but the reference to John 3:16 seems redundant. Or at least confusing: it's not clear what's being cited to the creed, and what is being cited to the Gospel. (Of course, the creed itself is based on an interpretation of the Gospels, as well as the rest of the New Testament. "Life and Teachings" starts with Some other relevant verses, so John 3:16 might fit in better there.) Arch O. La 18:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that the Nicene Creed citation was meant to cover everything between "Most Christians" and "Other Christians." After proposing the compromise, I stayed out of the debate over the finer points of theology re:atonement, salvation, sanctification, justification, et al. I'm a Lutheran, but CTSWyneken is better qualified to explain the Lutheran position than this lay believer. Arch O. La 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll not get into the debate here until the 2nd paragraph is settled. Since I haven't read the discussion, it really isn't fair for me to wade in, much less suggest, much, much less cbange anything. --CTSWyneken 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I was just setting up the discussion. Arch O. La 02:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I just am very bad at multitasking. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus "member" or "part" of Trinity?
I have made an emendation to the "Christian view of Jesus": Jesus is a member rather than part of the Holy Trinity. According to orthodox Christianity the Holy Trinity is not divisible into parts. Each divine Person is totus Deus, each having the fulness of deity. It is not the orthodox Christian view that Jesus is a third of God while the Father and the Holy Spirit are the other two thirds. There is no denomination of Christendom which publically believes and teaches that the Holy Trinity is divided up into parts. Of course, anything is possible. I would like to assist in editing this article as I am a Christian theologian dedicated, though, to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I am glad, by the way, that the red neutrality flag has been removed. We want to try to make this article the best it can be in the greatest online encyclopedia. With all respect to all. drboisclair 01:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He proposed this a week and a half ago (it's in the archive) but unfortunately we've been bogged down in paragraph 2. People. it's time to move on to ¶ 3. Arch O. La 02:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, despite whatever happened to that proposel, Drbiosclair's change makes sense to me :/. Homestarmy 02:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that he made the proposal and got drowned out by the Rodsteadman debates, so finally he made the change himself. But, yes, I also vote yea. Arch O. La 02:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate to point this out, but we need to quickly be careful that we don't get into the habit of voting on every single word change and letter replacement on this page. I would doubt there is another one that does so. At some point, we have to treat this page like any other highly vandalized page: with care and reverts for all. --Avery W. Krouse 02:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well we can't help it when 1 or 2 editors take extreme issue with big changes (Or really, even little changes) unless we pound out clear consensus :/. Homestarmy 02:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That said, I doubt there will be much quibble over this one word. Arch O. La 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum: God is beyond human understanding, and thus beyond words. Any words we use are only true in an approximate way, since, unlike God, language is not absolute. That said, some words are more true than others. Arch O. La 04:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Friends, can we wait on this one a day or two. We need to get the 2nd paragraph in place and watched until we can be sure it won't be constantly changed. Then I'll come on board. In the mean time, would someone do me the favor and be sure all the relevant discussion is in the subject archive for "Christian Views" and, while you're at it, create one for AD/CE - BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 12:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I archived the discussion of what was put in the intro, but there was considerable discussion before that on the issue. Ditto historicity and AD/CE. The archives are chronilogical and somewhat confusing for those of us who came in late. I leave it to the veterans to sort the archives by subject. Arch O. La 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

= Again with John 3:16 =

The following paragraph has been repeatedly restored - usually with only the comment "restore compromise"
 * Most Christians affirm the Nicene Creed and believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of scripture.

I presume the first sentence of the paragraph is intended to be parsed as such
 * Most Christians
 * affirm the Nicene Creed
 * and
 * believe
 * Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
 * and
 * acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).

and NOT


 * Most Christians
 * affirm the Nicene Creed
 * and
 * believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,
 * and
 * acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).

With 2 "and"s in there and neither a comma nor a "that" to mark the parallelism, the sentence is at least syntactically awkward. But my main objection is not to syntax - I mention it only to point out how "stuck on" the last part of the sentence is.

1. The Nicene Creed does NOT say that "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16)" -- rather it says that Jesus came to save people - no condition is mentioned. (Whether the condition is understood as necessary, sufficient, or anything else, it is still a condition.) The reverter has contended it IS in the Nicene Creed, or implied, or something... -- but it is NOT there, and any revert based on such "reasoning" is POV and Original Research.

2. The paragraph repeats "Nicene Creed" and as such, forms a bracket around things in-between, and has been repeatedly restored to keep that bracketing. If things in the middle are NOT about the Nicene Creed, then such should be explicit.

3. Catholics & several other groups (Greek Orthodox too, I think) do NOT believe that acceptance of Jesus is a condition (neither necessary nor sufficient) of salvation. Catholic theologians had even "invented" Limbo for those who were neither baptized, nor had accepted Jesus. According to this view, until Jesus, all good people went to Limbo. For centuries afterwards, with most of the world never hearing of Jesus, Limbo would probably still have been FAR more populated than heaven. Even now, more conceptions end in spontaneous abortion than birth. While the RCs no longer teach Limbo, they do still teach that those who never "accepted" Jesus can be saved. The RCs seem ready to even say they are already in heaven. The RCs also teach that those adults who lead a "just life" yet never "accept Jesus", can also be saved.
 * The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained... (C.C.C. # 816)
 * Lutherans also have agreed with the "just life" view

4. Even IF the majority of Xians belonged to churches that held this John 3:16 position, it would be only a bare majority (and it is NOT clear even that such IS the case). The introduction is needlessly introducing an issue about which there is no general agreement in Xty - and gives NO indication that there is contention on this issue. This topic, not being generally agreed upon, does not belong in the introduction - John 3:16's being "stuck on" is evidence that it is there mostly either to satisfy someone's desire to profess his/her faith or to engage in some Bible-thumping. It is misleading to present only the predominantly Protestant view as the view of "most Christians" (there is also other distinctly Protestant vocabulary in the paragraph and article, btw, but that's for another day). The proportion of Xians who believe the first part of the sentence is in no way commensurate with the proportion of those who believe the last part - and it is misleading NOT to point this out.

5. The clause in NOT really about Jesus, but rather about a religious relationship to Jesus. Not even the "Religious articles" on Jesus even mention this condition for salvation. This is supposed to be primarily a biography article about Jesus - not one about what certain sects teach about how one is supposed to relate to him.

6. Only one person has repeatedly restored my removal of that part of the sentence. I take it that is because I have already persuaded people here that it does not belong. Just because 4 or 5 people agreed on a compromise one week does not mean that the text is to remain unaltered despite further discussion. Another sentence has already been added on.

7. Why does it take a non-Christian to point this out?

I think I have amply demonstrated why this clause does not belong in this sentence in the introduction. This John 3:16 view is not agreed upon in anywhere near the same proportion as the other views in the sentence - it is quite likely not even the position of the Xian churches to which the majority of Xians belong. It is time to see who is fighting against the real consensus


 * See also
 * Talk:Jesus/Archive_19
 * http://www.beliefnet.com/story/57/story_5704.html
 * http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo1.htm
 * http://www.moraltruth.com/t03.asp
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_34

--JimWae 07:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW I agree with Jim. There is too much reverting to the unverifiable and inaccurate. Robsteadman 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This paragraph needs some work and, in particular, citation. I'll stay out of it, however, until the citations in the first and second paragraph are complete. There is only so much research that can be done at once. --CTSWyneken 12:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We'll get to it again in time, yeesh :/. Besides, since the Creed says that Jesus saved us from sin, and John 3:16 says we have to accept it, it's just combining the meaning of the creed and John 3:16, what's the big deal? Homestarmy 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The "big deal" is accuracy - that is what an encyclopedia is meant to be about. Robsteadman 16:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The compromise was meant to include both Nicene and non-Nicene views within the broader "Christian views." I have proposed that the reference to John 3:16 be moved to under "Life and Teachings, based on the Gospels." Beyond that, the paragraph was essentially designed by commitee, and the syntax could use some work. Arch O. La 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But isn't that really fro the body of the article rather than the intro? General, most "christians" believe in intro - nicene and nicene later? Robsteadman 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There were people arguing that, as well as people arguing for a more detailed description in the intro paragraph. Hence the compromise. Arch O. La 18:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The compromISE needs to be revISEd. It is a misrepresentation of the majority view & deserves speedy action. Compromises (& votes) should be about content - not about etching text in concrete.--JimWae 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But the majority view affirms the essense at least of the Nicene Creed, and John 3:16, right? Where's the problem? Homestarmy 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nicene creed yes, interpretation of John 3:16 - NO, not clearly at all. While probably over 95% agree with the Nicene Creed part, somewhere from maybe 45%-55% agree with the interpretaion of John 3:16. It is misrepresentation to lump them together --JimWae 23:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we have sources for that? I totally forgot what the Nicene Creed even was before I saw it in this article debate, much less could I affirm to it, at any rate, do we have any numbers somewhere? Homestarmy 23:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nearly all Xians assert the specific parts of the Nicene Creed mentioned in the article (although probably less assert the virgin birth & that too should be reviewed - but it is part of most Xian doctrine, even if the members do not believe). Approximately half of the Xians in the world are Catholic, and they do NOT interpret John 3:16 so literally - so anyone can do the math. Then there's the problem with what "accept Jesus" means. If I accept he lived & that he was generally a good guy, am I saved too? The intro should state ONLY what nearly all Xians agree on.--JimWae 23:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Whazza? Just because you could hypothetically claim the Nicene Creed doesn't necessarily advocate acceptance of Jesus doesn't mean the Creed is locking all Catholics into not being allowed to accept Jesus, it doesn't say "And knowing this alone is all you need to be saved" does it, plus not all Catholics quite honestly act Catholic at all, and what I mean by accept is the same as "to believe in compleatly", its a popular way of saying it because then you can say "accept Him into your heart" which is a wee bit metaphorical, but works the same and seems popular. Homestarmy 00:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

??? there is no link between the Nicene Creed & John 3:16. The article seems to have confused you on this - which is why it needs to be changed. When the intro presents Xian views, it should present ONLY what nearly all Xians agree on - without using vague language. --JimWae 00:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But now your saying that no Catholic agrees with John 3:16, correct? Homestarmy 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think what he's saying is that the Creed and the Gospel of John need to be considered as separate issues (and the paragraph written so that's clear that they are separate issues). If that's what he's saying, then I agree. Arch O. La 02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that discussion on this paragraph has been tabled until the war over the previous paragraph is over. I recall Tolkein (The Hobbit) and the Battle of the Five Armies. Who won? The last survivor. Is that what we really want here? Arch O. La 23:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Nicene Creed is of interest for reasons other than those mentioned here. A critical look into its full history can be a real eye-opener. Jim62sch 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

remove "also"
Last sentence in the third paragraph reads "Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy." The word ASLO should be removed since the previous sentence applies to SOME Christians but not ALL or MOST.

Stuartyeates 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. Sorry.Gator (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

=Archive Updated= Archive updated March 3, 2006 to include content from the last 2 weeks. Arch O. La 03:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)