Talk:Biblical Studies/Christianity

Should the first page be restructured?
Having the fulfilled prophecies table on the first page might seem rather overwhelming to the casual reader. Perhaps they should see the contents of Christianity/Overview instead?

Also the way it is now if someone goes to the overview first they might not even find the prophecies list as it's not anywhere in the TOC.

Anyway, see what you think. :) GarrettTalk 12:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Should This Book Continue Without Radical Changes?
IMHO what content is here appears to be very much not NPOV. Esp. given the "fulfilled prophecies" table. The content appears to be specific to the perspective of some denominations of Christianity.

While I think a humanities text on Christianity is not inappropriate, I believe it would need to be more descriptive of the religion in general being at least inclusive of the many denominations which claim the Christian tradition. Better yet, to my mind, would be for this "book" to be a section within a larger work on Comparative World Religions. erraunt 21:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I have been wondering about that for a while. However NPOV wordings of that section ("prophecies that certain denominations have been fulfilled" "allegedly fulfilled prophecies") would sound rather awful. And Christianity is a vast enough topic that it gets its own book, indeed certain major denominations within it could even have their own books too one day. Just as we have a book on the C programming language and yet despite the fact that C++ is based on it we have that in a completely separate book. Related topics are only shoved together if they aren't very deep; Christianity has been the topic of countless multi-volume works. But yes I agree something does need to be done, as long as it can be done without making the text ungainly. The difficulty is that believers in Jesus have a difficult time writing in the pseudo-cynical manner that produces NPOV, as that goes somewhat against their deepest convictions. Hm. But it's something to work on. GarrettTalk 01:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone might be offended by "Our Savior," so the change to "The Saviour" is crucified (prophecy), now does that imply The Savior of the world? In Luke the term is "A Savior which is Christ the Lord," hanged if you do, hanged if you don't. Serving the Lord as in computer language meant reverently delivering a web page, too cute, replaced that bottom line with entry into "How To" translate the Bible. Certainly, without presenting the Messianic prophecies as fulfilled, one would virtually emasculate Christianity. On the pseudo-cynical side, two of the prophecies have no exact O.T. reference according to authorities, but the Bible says no scripture can be annulled (John 10:35 Weymouth N.T.) and who would want to?   &#45; Athrash |  (  T a l k )  06:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's another problem, yes that could still be offensive; while no longer implying that he is your saviour it is still implying that he is a savior, and if you're an athiest you'd think that's rubbish. Saying "the Christian Saviour" is horrendous, but would certainly fulfill the NPOV issue. Really I don't know how things like this can be fixed without some parts ending up sounding stupid. Gah... :( GarrettTalk 01:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No plans to solve the problems of "the world" here. Unless, this is an allegory of life. Well yes, the Savior of "the world" reference relates to the Samaritan woman discourse of John 4. Jesus starts the discourse with an exclusivity claim, "Our" salvation is regional, but His message and demeanor say otherwise and convince a whole town of outsiders (Samaritans) that He is the Savior of the world. It is all about worship, only different mountains to climb and if there are too many paths to enlightenment, I guess you end up worshipping the mountain. The first outreach after Pentecost was to those Samaritans by Philip the Evangelist (Acts 8:5) and the rest is history. Then, the sheep are those who follow Christ and the remainder, nominally, the goats, are Samaritans or the mix. Thus, even though at the judgment you are on your own, we could have the ideal world where all Christians are CHRISTIAN and all Samaritans (outsiders) are GOOD (Luke 10:30-37) and everyone has a mountaintop experience, now, do you feel better already. Obviously, the best option is "The Savior," but something must be said for the Samaritans (out there).   &#45; Athrash |  (  T a l k )  04:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Zealots Arise

 * Prophecy 1 Seed of a woman
 * Basis: Obvious
 * Support
 * &#45; Athrash | T a l k 23:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * - Click above user for prophecy table
 * Question


 * Delete
 * Delete


 * Prophecy 2 Priest-King-Messiah
 * Basis:O.T. Jeshua Order of Melchizedek - Heb 7:17 King of Israel - John 12:13 Andrew declared the Messiah is here - John 1:41
 * Support
 * &#45; Athrash | T a l k 23:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question
 * Question


 * Delete
 * Delete


 * Prophecy 3 Born of a Virgin
 * Basis:
 * Support
 * &#45; Athrash | T <font color="00AAAA">a <font color="00BBBB">l <font color="00DDDD">k 23:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question
 * Question


 * Delete
 * Delete


 * Prophecy 30 The Betrayal of Christ
 * Basis:
 * Support
 * &#45; Athrash | T <font color="00AAAA">a <font color="00BBBB">l <font color="00DDDD">k 23:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question
 * Question


 * Delete
 * Delete

Poorly written
I think that this who wikibook is poorly written; The contents structure looks quite adequate, but the articles are poorly written, not detailed, and there seems to be a good dose of added weird stuff. I think that this wikibook should be deleted and started again. Anonymous browsing user: --121.45.182.172 15:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC) - or perhaps it should just link into wikichristian which is much better organized and has more detail.

Chapter 5: Later Christian Movements
Mormons, since they do not share the orthodox Christian conception of the Triune God nor much else shouldn't be called a Christian movement any more than Bahai is. Same goes for Christian Scientists as they deny the dual nature of Christ. Adventists are possibly Christian depending on the particular sect.

Perhaps a new division is needed?

Chapter 5: Later Christian Movements (SDAs, Christian Fundamentalism, ???)

Chapter 6: Non-Christian Groups With Christian Roots (perhaps put it between the current 6 & 7) (Bahai Jehovah's Witnesses Mormons Christian Science Unitarians? Quakers? Others?)

If we are going to define Christianity as Christians have for 2000 years, then we cannot lump neo-Arians and others who deny basic facts about Christ as Christians.
 * Could change heading back to (Later) Prophetic Movements as listed in 2006 which would cover the 3 sects as they are. &#45; Athrash | T <font color="00AAAA">a <font color="00BBBB">l <font color="00DDDD">k 17:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)