User talk:WikiRat

Kudos to ClemMcGann for showing me this feature.

-- Dear Wiki Rat, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That mean that it is a repository of existing knowledge. It is not a place for original research. see No original research. You have some theories. You might be "fairly certain about Linus being the son of Caratacus", but unless you can quote an authorative source, it cannot be added to Wikipedia. Your theory that Linus preceeded Peter is original. Again you need an authorative source. You can't use your interpretation of scripture. If you can find an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal, then perhaps it can be added. Until then, I'm reverting. Welcome, Welcome, newcomers, Regards, --ClemMcGann 09:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikirat, please stop removing the tag on Palatium Britannicum, until everyone involved in this matter believes that we have reached some kind of consensus on the article. While I believe you are making constructive steps providing cites for this subject, it reflects badly on you when you repeatedly remove this tag without explaining why you removed it. If you look at the talk page above, you will see that 2 other editors have reservations about this article, & need to have their concerns addressed. Thank you in advance for your help. -- llywrch 22:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Dear WikiRat,

I need persuading of your stuff about Xity in Roman Britain. What are your secondary sources? The primary sources you cite are the kind of thing traditionally seen as interpolations by enthusiastic medieval Christians (well, Gildas and his friends may have made it up themselves - Gildas, remember, had so feeble a grasp of history that he thought that Hadrian's Wall was constructed in the fourth century, instead of the second). And there is good other evidence that there weren't a lot of Christians until pagan sacrifice was banned in 398 (eg the character of mosaics in Britain, or the thin British representation at councils and synods). I suggest that this article should be much more cautious about this. Mark O'Sullivan 20:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear WikiRat

Thanks for your reply to the above. My responses are as follows:

1  "Early Latin references (Dio Cassius, Martial, early Roman Saints etc) to Christian Britain suggest that Britain was exposed to Christianity at least as early as Rome" What are these references?

2   "and the same references compliment [I supppose you mean "complement"] what ever sources were used to compile the Mabinogion which clearly draws a like ["link"?] between some early Celtic kings and Christianity." Well, the Mabinogion is plainly full of fantasy, so this doesn't show much.

3   "Familiarity with these ancient references seem to help explain why many 19th Century scholars (Williams, J., Conybeare, W.) or earlier (James Ussher) believed this to be true un-reservedly." Really? I haven't read them, but I do know that since the early middle ages there have been people in England keen to demonstrate that there was an early Christian church in Britain independent of Rome, first to bolster resistance to papal actions of various sorts or to flatter the king's such resistance, and much emphasised after the Reformation in order to justify the existence of the Church of England. Hence Joseph of Arimathea at Glastonbury &c. Plainly, however, this is nonsense.

4   "It also helps explains the existence of a “Celtic Catholic Church” until it was outlawed in the Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D." Well, there was clearly an Irish and a Welsh/Cornish/Dumbarton tradition of Christianity derived from Roman times. Those churches weren't outlawed by Whitby, though clearly that involved acceptance of Roman interpretation of Easter dating.

5   "Recently literary sources have been uncovered between individuals indicating an established Christian community dating before 336 C.E. from a Christian man named Vinisius to a Christian woman named Nigra living in Bath"  What is this?

6  "And we know that the early Christian Church in Britain used the customary diocesan system as evidenced from the records of the Council of Arles in Gaul, 314.6 C.E. Signatories include three bishops from Britain. These were Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelphius, so the early Church did exist – there is no doubt." Yes, we know there were bishops in the two largest cities - which does show some Christianity in Britain then. But it was an urban religion, and there was a lot of trade, so that's not altogether surprising: it doesn't allow one to infer much about the wider existence of Christianity in Britain. Indeed, given the large numbers of bishops from continental cities, the implication if any is that Christianity in Britain was weak.

7  "20th Century scholars have been the ones to formulate the counter argument that Rome brought with it Christianity, however 20th Century scholars also show a shocking lack of familiarity with ancient texts, and almost a complete reliance on secondary or tertiary sources. (How can you write about history, when you restrict your research almost completely, to the views of others who themselves are writing about history? Someone at sometime has to be looking at the evidence first hand.)"  It depends which scholars you read...

8  "For non-literary sources there is evidence such as the existence of Cornish, Welsh, and Kentish churches that were hundreds of years old in the 500 – 600 C.E. Few of which now stand, but whose existence is documented." I think there is good evidence of strong Christianity in Britain in the fifth century. There must have been many churches after 400 AD, but none I know of that survive, though archaeologists have suggested some sites. The earliest surviving church in England is surely Saxon, isn't it?

9   "At least one pre-Augustine church still stands, “Saint Martins”." Is that the one built by Queen Bertha of Kent a few years before Augustine arrived?

10  "The Roman Catholic Churches has been challenged three time in history as to the seniority of Catholic churches (by France, Italy, and Spain) and claimed all three times that the senior Roman Catholic Church is not the Church of France, Spain or Italy, but the Ecclesia Anglicana or English Church. This was last challenged (by Spain I believe) in 1927, and upheld by Pope Pius XI." This sounds frankly bizarre. What is the evidence for it?

Mark O'Sullivan 18:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

My Dear Brother, WikiRat,

Please hold steadfast. I have read your work on the church and it is very accurate. The Celtic Church has been under attack for almost 2000 years from pro Roman Catholic protagonists who have for close to two milleniums, revised history in order to bolster their agenda. There is an over abundance of evidence that the Celtic Church existed before the church in Rome and contrary to what Rome contends, it did not go away after the Synod of Whitby.

Feel free to contact me if you need more historical references.

+ John

Bishop John (PhD) Celtic Apostolic Church

I am now WikiRat1
I cannot log into this account for some reason, so Ive been using the account WikiRat1. Contact me there if you need me.

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)