User talk:Palmleaf

'bear' and 'give birth'
Actually, in Liturgical English, both are found, but 'thou has given birth' is the translation used in the English-language texts of the Sourozh diocese of the MP. Just a bit of information for you there. InfernoXV (talk) 11:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation request for "Revised Julian calendar"
Please provide a citation to support this edit. Those of us who are not members of any Orthodox Church or who cannot read the languages in which those churches conduct most of their affairs have difficulty finding a source. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not belive the material you added and insist upon a citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The material I added is summarized from the two sources that I cited - David Bennett (on why Christmas is December 25) and D. Murdoch, who provided more info on Christ as the sun of righteousness. (I would have simply quoted from those sources at length, but this is not allowed as these are copyrighted materials.) These are the sources - but what they say is echoed in many other sources. It is generally accepted that Dec. 25 was chosen as the date of Christmas because the connection with the sun's resurgence/reappearance. If you read the sources, one of them states that many church fathers held the view that Jesus is the "Sun of Righteousness." Bennett (along with many other sources and books) states Dec. 25 was chosen as the date of Christmas in part because of that (Jesus=Sun of Righteousness) and in part because of the symbolism of fact that at winter solstice the sun begins to return and the days grow longer. This is one of the principal arguments for the Revised Julian calendar. So it is quite relevant. When the celebration of Christmas drifts away from the actual winter solstice, the connection is lost. The Church then is not observing the feast of Christ's birth at the time of the winter solstice, which was a principal reason Dec. 25 was chosen as the date of Christmas. The biblical quotes (citations provided) give even more confirmation of Jesus as the sun of righeousness.

If you don't agree, you should put your arguments in the "Criticism" section.

You wrote "Those of us who are not members of any Orthodox Church." If you are not Orthodox, that may explain why you seem to have some trouble understanding the issues being discussed here. If you are Orthodox, why do you speak as though there was more than one Orthodox Church? There is only one Orthodox Church.


 * First, inline citations must immediately follow the material they support, and must provide page numbers or equivalent means of narrowing down the part of the reference work that must be read in order to see the reference work really does support the claim. If there is no citation following a claim, it is unsupported and subject to removal.


 * "If you don't agree, you should put your arguments in the "Criticism" section." Absolutely not. My personal opinions or doubts have no place in any Wikipedia article, and neither do yours. All contentious or challenged material must be supported by citations to reliable source. To make articles more concise, we allow statements that everyone agrees with ("Paris is the capital of France") but whenever anyone expresses a sincere doubt about a claim, a supporting source must be found or the claim will be removed.


 * "If you are not Orthodox, that may explain why you seem to have some trouble understanding the issues being discussed here." Every Wikipedia article is for everyone. In order for a statement to be considered so well-known that no citation is needed, it must be well-know in all English-speaking literate cultures, not just groups that have a special affinity toward the subject of the article. Also, a statement such as "By contrast, the Church calendar itself (for example, that Christ's Nativity is celebrated on 25 December) is not viewed as a device of human technology, but as divinely established" must be viewed as referring to all churches that consider themselves Christian, whether Orthodox, Coptic, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Christian Science, etc. After all, there is no such thing as a Wikipedia article that is just for Muslims, just for Orthodox Christians, just for Hindus, etc. In that light, I don't think you could possibly find a source that would claim that all Christians consider the celebration of the Nativity on December 25 as divinely established. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have asked at WP:RSN about the reliability of Stellar House Publishing. I am unfamiliar with this publisher and would like a wider group of editors to share what they know about this publisher. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Revised Julian Calendar is something that exists within the Orthodox Church, also called the Eastern Orthodox Church. This whole article has relevance only to that church. It has no relevance to the many churches you mention, or to other religions, such as Islam, Hinduism, etc. Thus, for example, the statement that the calendar is viewed as divinely established, would be correct in the context of this article because that is what the Orthodox Church believes.

There has been disagreement within members of that church as to whether the Revised Julian Calendar (RJC, hereafter) should be adopted -- some regions and parishes use it, others do not use it. I want to stress that the the disagreement over the Revised Julian Calendar is precisely a difference of opinion. There are opinions on each side. The Orthodox Church has not decided definitively, but there are arguments pro and con. I do not believe there is any book that gathers the pro arguments together. But the things I have said are the main points that are made in defense of the Julian Calendar.

All Orthodox Christians accept that December 25 is the date when the birth of Jesus should be celebrated. All Orthodox Christians would agree that that date is divinely established. On the other hand, some believe the Julian Calendar is also divinely established and therefore they oppose the use of the RJC. Others believe that the Julian Calendar - like all human calendars - is a human invention and that its use is not divinely mandated or established, and that it can be replaced by a more accurate calendar. Both these views are opinions, that are widely held among adherents of the two sides. I do not believe there is a book or article in existence that explains all of these things. There is a more developed "con" literature than "pro" literature on the subject. I am certain that the identification of Jesus with the phrase "sun of righteousness" is widely known and acccepted in the Orthodox Church -- and that that phrase is also linked, in the mind of Orthodox Christians, with the date Dec. 25 as the date of the celebration of Jesus's birth, because of the sun's reappearance at that time. These things are major reasons for favoring the RJC. If this information is deleted, that "defense" side of the dispute will simply not be told on this site. I have considerable knowledge about this matter, being an Orthodox seminary faculty member and Orthodox clergy member. The things I said are not merely my opinions, but are representative of the opinions of those who favor the RJC in the Orthodox Church. I also quoted from the Christian gospels texts linking Jesus with solar imagery, because it strengthens the argument about him being the "sun of righteousness." You deleted that material, although it is clearly not originating from me.

Let me conclude by repeating that the RJC is something that only exists in the Orthodox Church. Those who criticize or defend it, therefore, share a number of basic presuppositions that are common to Orthodox Christian believers and theologians. Others - people who are not members of the Orthodox Church - would probably call such presuppositions "opinions."

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Theophany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epiphany (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)