Talk:Origins of Christianity/Archive 1

"Recently"
I am unhappy with the presentation of the recognition of the complex origins of Christianity as a "recent" development. Most of these ideas have been around for more than a century. If "recently" means "one century" compared to "eighteen centuries", this should be made clear. --dab (𒁳) 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. History2007 (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge Apostolic Age into Origins of Christianity

 * Merge Since other merge ideas have no WP:CON I propose merging Apostolic Age into Origins of Christianity. There is very little difference in subject matter between this article and Apostolic Age; They are different articles taking "different perspectives on the same basic phenomena", exactly what should not be done, even if begun for seemingly good purposes. We sure don't need both-- as we also have :*Christianity in the 1st century, Christianity in the 2nd century, etc.; Early Christianity; History of early Christianity; Ante-Nicene Period. We could keep either name, but Origins of Christianity would show the overall purpose better. We mainly we have to remove the content fork(s).  şṗøʀĸ şṗøʀĸ:  τᴀʟĸ 21:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * From WP:Content forking:

Content forking can be unintentional or intentional... If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.


 * No Merge - Apostolic Age and Origins of Christianity are two different subjects, not a content fork. If the articles are allowed to develop, perhaps Carlaude can learn why they are two different subjects. Wikipedia should not be reduced to the narrow view of one agressive editor. 75.15.198.37 (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No merge Wikipedia should have an article on the Origins of Christianity, there are plenty of Reliable sources to draw on, some already presented in the current article, and the scope of the article is well defined in the current lead. 75.14.215.213 (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. (not to merge) However there is some duplication between this article and the one on Split of early Christianity and Judaism --152.131.9.69 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No Merge - sorry but these are from different dimensions. One refers to a "time period in history", the other to the discussion of the origins of a Religion. Middle Ages is about a time period, Origins of Islam is a different item. History2007 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No Merge - keep separate articles. One is about the beginning of Christianity and the other reffers to a specific time period. They are different things. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Closed the merger proposal, given that there were more No Merge votes, as above, no votes for a long time, i.e. since November 2010. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Dr David Hillman's Research
Pepperbeast:  Here I am, taking it to the talk page first. I note you make no mention of my revision's factualness. 107.131.117.141 (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hillman is a non-notable fringe theorist. His opinions do not belong in any article. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor synthesis of primary sources without scholarly citation
Pepperbeast, you keep on adding back stuff that is prohibited by the policies; while I am new here, the wording is clear as day. Why do you do this?DismantledDespair (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

diff. I do not think the blanked content was particularly good. But you need to understand that an article that is very poorly sourced in general does not profit from agenda-driven editors applying isolated demands for rigor: A bona fide editor may make an effort to improve the overall quality of a page, even including major restructuring. Your generic pov warrior will just cruise poor articles and blank content he objects to citing "policy asks for premier quality scholarly sources" while conveniently ignoring equally poor content that sits better with their own bias. This is not helpful, and it decreases overall neutrality. --dab (𒁳) 14:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Lack of Nazoreans
I believe that Jesus guy was called Nazorean now and then, but why then is so little mentioned about a possible origin in Nazorean Essenism? Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 19:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you are referring to James the Brother of Jesus (book) [1997]. The article dedicated to this topic is Split of early Christianity and Judaism, but of course this page should at least link that article, and if possible present a short summary. --dab (𒁳) 14:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Npov
Tagged as seems to be pushing Christianity as descended from paganism rather than the Holy Spirit, a narrow view of some scholars which is outside traditional histories of the church. Clearly a neutral balance needs to be struck between secular histories of Christian origins and Christian historians' own version of events- this article does not seem to be attempting neutrality in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.250.240.103 (talk) 10:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The topic here is not if Christianity is "descended from the Holy Spirit" -- this would amount to asking whether Christianity is "true", which is completely intractable as an encyclopedic question. What the article should balance is derivation of Christianity from Judaism vs. derivation of Christianity from paganism. Needless to say, it's a synthesis and this is not an either-or question. --dab (𒁳) 14:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

MIthrism of Christianity
Need to add section on Mithric influence on Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.1.146.100 (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

treated in detail here, needs mutual linking. --dab (𒁳) 14:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Neoplatonism
Neoplatonism started in the 3rd century CE; it may have influenced the later part of early Christianity, which is said to have lasted until 325 CE, but neoplatonic influences on the origins of Christianity seem unlikely to me...  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is a rather dubious article - the lead and sequence of sections seem very odd, and the title probably misleading. It mentions St Augustine (died 430) at various points for example. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Syncretistic
No serious academic would call Christianity "syncretistic.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You'll have to read better; the line says
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  03:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't misrepresent my argument. I can read clearly, but evidently Drmies edit summary read: "it was a syncretistic world. we're dealing with a syncretistic religion. "unclear to the reader" is nonsense--if so, provide a wikilink. Also, see WP:BRD." this is strong evidence the reader is goin got psychologically associate "syncretism" with "origins of Christianity".ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 03:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And I would like to ask: what does the syncretism of the Hellenistic world have to do with the origins of Christianity?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The average reader doesn't read edit-summaries. The association is yours. And regarding syncretism: see the first line: Hellenistic Judaism. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The average reader doesn't read edit-summaries. The association is yours. And regarding syncretism: see the first line: Hellenistic Judaism. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Christ myth theory
According to User:ScepticismOfPopularisation, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory which should not be mentioned here diff diff per WP:UNDUE. That policy says: The line in question is one line, which clearly states that it is considered to be fringe. Yet, there are notable adherents, and notable opponents, such as Ehrman, who has dedicated a whole book to it. Also, the theory has a growing popularity with a general audience. So, no undue weight here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
 * "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"
 * pop acceptance does not merit mention, especially as a line within a section of the paragraph that is supposed to tell them what knowledge has been produced on the topic. It is linked in the "See Also" section-that is enough.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead
I've trimmed this edit to the lead:

The WP:LEAD summarises the article; Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "(a belief at odds with the both the pagan and Jewish customs of that time, thus marking Christians off from all their contemporaries)" is not in the article, and WP:UNDUE for the lead
 * the scope of this article is the origins of Christianity, not thr debelopment of orthodox Christianity.
 * a)the development of orthodox Christianity is connected with the origins of Christianity- after all, Orthodox Christianity is the Christianity most people know about, and that siwhat they may be looking for when they search "origins of Christianity".
 * b) As I said the details I inserted are necessary to emphasize the historicity of Jesus. if you have a problem, you could put it n the article body- simple as that.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 06:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:LEAD: the lead summarises the article. Yor edits do not summarise the article. And no editor demands another editor to do the work to solve the problems one has created himself. That's your job. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Christ cult"
Just like with "Christ myth", this seems to be terminology shared with mythicists, and should be removed.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Burton L. Mack is not a Christ mythicist. WP:DISRUPTIVE is also: ignoring talk page treads. See above, Talk:Origins of Christianity, and WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Never said he was. All I'm saying is that Christ mythicists use similar terminology to refer to something different.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Eleven disciples
"Eleven disciples" is mythology, not historical fact. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  09:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * O course, doesn't matter. Of all things THIS is what you decided to focus on.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

POV
According to User:ScepticismOfPopularisation, this is "Severely POV":

See Mack 1995, as referenced in the article, reference 11, and note 4. Please self-revert. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know mate. Perhaps you could explain what does "Christ myth" mean, in this context?ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Read the article and the references. But I'd happily add some extra info.  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if it isn't the lay reader may see it as referring to the astrological jesus myth mythicists like to promote, so better to stay safe and not mention it.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here you go again with your personal opinions and confusion. This is sourced info from a respectable scholar relating to the oldest starta of Christian beliefs, which is also mentioned by other scholars. I strongly urge you to self-revert, lest your behavio=r will be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  07:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For convenience, please link this sourced info so I could read it for myself. Also, talk pages are BUILT on opinions. You better provide proof how thi s might NOT confuse readers.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Chapter three of. The note says:

WP:BURDEN is up to you in this case; I've provided reliable references, in accordance with Wiki-policies; you are referring to your personal interpretations and misunderstandings. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  07:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not so. The source you put here only says that Mack chose the terminology perosnally-this only gives weight to my opinion. For this to be used the terminology has to be generally used by mainstream academics.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's your personal opinion, like your "argument" that it might confuse readers. See WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:TRUTH. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all; talk page discussions are BUILT on personal opinions. Second of all- the text of the source itself says that Mack "chose the terminology Christ cults". So no, not my personal opinion.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and using scare quotes does not necessarily make you any more right. So far you have to use this "personal opinion" card in order to "counter" my arguments.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Jesus' life
His life and ministry should come first in the Jesus section, it is absurd to put in the last paragraphs of his sectionScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * SInce, I "made my reverts in a series on edits; this makes it count as only two" thi sis only my third rvert, thus I did not break 3RR (which requires more than 3 reverts). Please don't revert your edit back per WP:CONSENSUS.ScepticismOfPopularisation (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * could you take a look at this attitude? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  16:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not right now, I'm afraid, though I'll say to ScepticismOfPopularisation that 3RR is only one way to measure edit warring, which is an attitude. In other words, one can be blocked for edit warring even if 3RR is not broken. We're not just bean counters here; we're trying to collaborate. Joshua, feel free to ping the blocking admin if you think the editor is still at war. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And maybe it's a good idea to drop a note on some of the Project talk pages, to get some more editors involved. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. could you take a look at this attitude?  Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @ScepticismOfPopularisation: the section on Jesus now contains two separate alineas on his ministry, with doublure information. When you edit, you should do better than pushing your preferred lines while ignoring the structure and the contents of the article. My edit remedied this problem, which you re-instated with your revert, meanwhile removing sourced info ("There is widespread disagreemen ...") and wiki-links. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe Drmies has said what needs saying. 3RR means that if you go past three reverts, you're almost certain to get blocked. It doesn't mean you won't get blocked for three or fewer, nor does it mean you're somehow entitled to three. If someone's clearly edit warring, whether or not they technically violate 3RR, that's still disruptive and cause for a block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)