Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:God/Archive 1

2010-04-02T17:38:53Z

Bradology: /* Omnibenevolence */

I think the "God" page of ALL pages should have just a LITTLE bit longer page --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)--[[Elamdri|Elamdri]]

Fixed a vandal.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Neutrality==

Made this page talk about God as a deistic being as well as the Christian PoV.[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Conservapedia is not about neutrality. Conservapedia favors factual information over "neutral" information, and is written from a Christian point of view. Thus, the article on God should accurately say that God is the creator of the universe, not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:00, 12 March 2007
::Actually, nowhere in the Conservapedia Commandments does it mention a Christian PoV. In fact its called '''Conserv'''apedia and I'm fairly confident that not all Conservatives are Christians. Your reversion to the old very biased page is very strange to me. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 16:04, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The definition of liberal is one who chooses right from wrong for themselves instead of accepting the objective right and wrong. Since Christianity is right, denial of that is liberalism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
::::you have a source for that definition? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::As a sociologist, I challenge you to definitively explain the "objective" right and wrong. I would also ask you to support your argument that "Christianity is right" with at least one academic source. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree to the necessary explanation of right and wrong. Many different religions have many different views on god. Some have very different views on creation. An example of this would be [[Bumba]]. We need to make sure that all religions are encompassed.--[[User:Liberal|Liberal]] 14:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmm, reads here that "Everything you post must be true and verifiable". How about the existence of God? or merely his nature? That goes unnoticed?

::''Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it?'' Is 48:6
::''For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made'' Rm 1:20 [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:41, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Luke-Jr, your statement that Christianity is right is a perfect example of begging the question. Why is Christianity right? Because Christianity says so. Right? Secondly, You've got the definition of liberal wrong: A liberal is someone who favors personal freedom of choice for all individuals, as opposed to oppression of the people by a minority of individuals. Given that the entire core of Christianity is predicated on the notion of a person choosing whether or not to believe in God, whether or not to be saved, ot seems to me that a good Christian should BE a liberal: Why would you want to deny anyone the joy of choosing to have a relationship with God of their own accord, as opposed to using fear or coercion to make them? If you believe that using your mind to make decisions for yourself is evil, then by all means, don't do it, but with that choice you also forfeit the right to tell other people how to think or behave, because THINKING about why they're wrong would be wrong for you.
Also, the word "deitic" in the opening paragraph of this entry is not even a word. This is yet another Conservapedia article that I would give to a third-grade english class with the assignment of pointing out the mistakes. --[[GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:45, 5 April 2007 (CST)

The bible is proof that god exists; it has historical accounts of people meeting god. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:10, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

There is also the case of [[irreducible complexity]]. [[User:NikD|NikD]] 02:13, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:The problem is that quite a few people do not consider the Bible a reliable source. In e.g. the New Testament, the Gospels are written by anonymous people decades after the death of Jesus, and the origine of the Old Testament and the rest of the Tanakh remains unknown. If we do, however, regard the Bible as a historical source, even then, it can't be used as decisive proof of anything. Even modern sources can't, because you will have to consider their reliability. And then what about all the other sources contradicting it? What about e.g. the Qur'an? It is actually a much more reliable source since we know its author to be the creator of the religion, Muhammed. Or what about the Iliad? Do those texts also prove their respective religions and the existence of their gods? Or should we have to be a little more critical when reading sources than to consider the words of the Bible decisive proof?--[[User:AFM|AFM]] 18:53, 14 October 2009 (EDT)
::Thank you! people act as if the bible was handed down by god... it wasn't so now the statement reads: prove the bible is true. now what?

==Many are skeptical of ''which'' idea?==
"However, many are skeptical of this idea." -- The idea of it being the same god, or that it's a Muslim plot? [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Note==
Excuse me, but is that really a fair assumption? I'm also pretty sure that Judaism is the source of both Islam and Christianity, but those two aren't actually connected to each other. But I could be wrong. Either way, it also seems to paint Islam in some sort of satanic light. They're just different and probably wrong, not evil.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:you are correct Judaism created both Christianity and Islam and both preach pretty much the same message. and yes it does paint Islam in a satanic light but good luck trying to change it to more factual information without getting banned.

==Errors==
I appreciate the conclusion that the article needs to be locked in view of the high volume of vandalism, but I hope it's only temporary - especially as it prevents fine-tuning, and doesn't allow even alternative ''Christian'' views a look-in. For example, the article speaks of 'God' as a given, and without defining ''which'' God (as a previous version helpfully did). The expression 'fourth century' should in fact read 'second century' (I should know - I wrote it!). And the Bible doesn't require belief in a ''personal'' lord and saviour, whatever other kind of lord and saviour it may require belief in, and whatever additional ideas evangelicals might prefer to read into the Messianic texts. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:38, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Omnibenevolence==
Is god omnibenevolent? [[User:Zed|Zed]] 06:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

No, if there is a god, he must not be omnibenevolent because there are wars and diseases. [[User:Bradology|Bradology]] 13:38, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

==Conservapedia is not open==

How can you claim to have a communally edited encyclopedia if some pages are locked. What a sham! I would think the article on God would be one that quite a lot of people would like to contribute to.--[[User:Golden|Golden]]

:Wikipedia blocks articles also, don't forget. Article which are subject to constant vandalism have editing disabled, George W Bush for example. Given the nature of this site it's reasonable to expect much vandalism directed towards the god article. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:49, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

==Conservatives==

I think, Golden, that you will find, in general, that only by preventing freedom and the right of free speech can any Conservative system of power maintain it's rule. This very website is an excellent example of such a system. This is why many essential pages such as "[[god|god]]" and "[[jesus|jesus]]" tend to be locked- thus also heavily reducing their usefulness.

I thought American conservatives such as yourself are extremely patriotic to America? And isn't freedom of speech something America supposedly stands for? Doesn't your extremely conservative president constantly talk about freedom in America? So from what I can gather locking out users from contributing to articles in very un-conservative

==Attributes of God==
These are contradictory - consider that if God is omnipotent, omniscient and also that "God is love" (1 John 4:8). If God loves unconditionally, and is all-powerful and all knowing - why is there needless suffering. eg. disease, infant death, natural disasters etc. - if he KNOWS how to remove suffering (omniscience), has the POWER to relieve suffering (omnipotence), and loves us UNCONDITIONALLY, then there should be no suffering in the world. By deduction, one can assume that either God does not either a) have the power b) have the knowledge required or c) care enough. His abilities should not be listed like superpowers as this article does. [[User:Zed|Zed]] 03:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, "Jealousy" is left off the list. Its the first commandment: "Thou shalt have no gods before me, for I am a jealous god." Striking omission. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

"not "neutrally" imply the Christians invented God's status as the creator of the universe" They did, actually. It's there in your bible.

I heard something about god which I found quite interesting, if good is all powerful and loves us all why is there needless suffering in the world? If good is all powerful and doesn't love us why worship him? If god isn't all powerful and loves us then he's pretty much useless and if god isn't all powerful and doesn't love us then it's pretty much the same thing[[User:Nobodyyouareawareof|Nobodyyouareawareof]] 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm far from a zealot, but these arguments always strike me as hopelessly simplistic. Why do we presume that we can understand God? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even? I imagine that small children (never mind animals, insects, etc...) can't comprehend why, if I claim to love them, I make them eat their vegetables, don't let them stay up as long they want, and so on. Just because a person believes that unconditional love and unlimited power should yield no suffering doesn't actually make it true.

:Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-wonders, wonders (ooom ba doo-oo oom!) who wrote the book of Job...''

:The argument against God's benevolence is severely flawed. It assumes that suffering serves no useful purpose and that a human society where God prohibits all suffering will necessarily be better than having suffering.
:Even reading the Book of Job won't be enough. You're going to need a doctorate or two in religious philosophy, etc., before you can seriously debate the Problem of Evil. --[[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]

== Bad sentence ==

In "notes" the phrase ''a ritualized 'adoption' ritual'' appears. What would a non-ritualised ritual be like, I wonder? [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, I dont believe in god.

== Capitalization Concerns ==

If referring to the Creator of the Universe, then the word 'creator' should be capitalized.
Also, when referring to THE Cross, or the actual place of 'Cavalry' (and not mounted soldiers) or THE Ressurection, the words 'cross', 'cavalry' and 'ressurection' should all be capitalized.
<ref>http://www.pvc.maricopa.edu/lsc/faq/eng/enggrawhen.htm#terms</ref>
:Just a note, the PLACE is Calvary, the military unit is cavalry. Note the difference in the location of the 'l'.
::I think lots of people have problems with both words...I still do that sometimes! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:51, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==other views of god==

The god this article refers to is not just the god of christianity, it is also the god of Islam and Judaism, that piece of information should also be included, as well as the views on god from other religions, if only one perspective of the subject is given then it severely undermines the reliability of the article.<--Previous comment left by [[Nobodyyouareawareof]]
:Take a look at [[Allah]]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
{{cquote|James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.}}

== Error in first sentence (concept of God), or missing reference==
It is WRONG to say that God is the creator of the Universe. The Holy Bible tells us that God has created the HEAVENS and the EARTH. The author of this entry distorts this knowledge by claiming that God has created the Universe. There is no reference for this, however. Kluivert 18 August 2007

==God's Evidence==
I say we should include the fact that, despite many philosophical and scientific tentatives of people to prove him, God has never ever unconfutably shown his existence. I think this is very important in the being of God, because he is so good he leaves us the freedom to choose to believe him or not. He still wants us to search for him, and not accept him as an unquestionable truth. He wants as to believe, he wants us to ''choose'' to believe. This can't be kept unwritten. P.S. Sorry for any language mistakes, I'm Italian.[[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 09:21, 24 January 2008 (EST)

: I appreciate that you have problems with the language, but I can't figure out what word you meant by "unconfutably". "Irrefutably", perhaps? No matter how strong the evidence, some still won't believe, so I'm not sure that irrefutable evidence, in the absolute sense, is really possible. And for someone who is basically saying that we can't know of God's existence as a certainty, you seem to be quite certain about what this uncertain God wants us to believe. I agree that He wants us to ''choose'' to believe, but I also think that He wants us to be convinced, not uncertain. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:18, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:: Yes, I meant that he has not clearly stated his existence so to result obviously present to us. I think we should write of his choice not to ever been proven [[User:Dandus|Dandus]] 11:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::: I believe that He has made His existence quite clear, but my point was that because some people won't believe no matter how clear He makes existence known, so there's no point is saying that He could have made it clearer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 26 January 2008 (EST)

::::He can certainly make it clearer. Every action we can observe today has an explanation independent of God, and the Bible is old enough that many believe it to be of dubious credibility in terms of the literal, physical events that took place. Consistent, verifiable, clear violations of the laws of physics (especially connected with a religious setting) would do much to convince many unbelievers. Nonetheless, God does not intervene in that way, and this is an important aspect of His character. [[User:BaneWintermute|BaneWintermute]]
::::: Sounds like a bit of chronological snobbery in there. Why does its age undermine its credibility? (Or are you suggesting that that's the view of many people, but not your view?) If there were ''consistent'' and ''verifiable'' (by means of repeatable tests) "violations" of the laws of physics, then surely those "violations" would indicate that we have the laws of physics wrong? And that they aren't really "violations" at all? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

== Breach of commandments? ==

"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."

I don't know how any of the article as is follows this rule. The most flagrant violation being

"God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin."

How is this even remotely verifiable?[[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:23, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
: By reference to a very reliable document: The Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::So then the bible counts as absolute truth? And "verification" means "looking at the bible"? [[User:Qc|Qc]] 08:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Why did you just move the goalposts from "verifiable" to "absolute truth"? Is that a tacit admission that your original criticism didn't stand up to scrutiny? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Since the references to the bible that deal with this article are impossible to verify objectively, (ie, god punishes the wicked in hell) the only conclusion is that CP (or at least you as an editor) treat the bible as absolute truth. Not that this is wrong in itself, but it seems to violate the "verifiable" commandment or at least represent a lack of understanding of the word. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 11:47, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: If someone posts a claim on Wikipedia, it has to be cited from a "reliable source". They say nothing about being able to verify that the "reliable source" is correct. Similar applies here. The claim can be verified from a source that has proven reliability. There's no requirement to independently check every claim made by that source. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::::: I think the problem is here a lack of clarity in the first commandment, specifically what is meant by "verifiable" They really should elaborate considerably, especially since this is such a controversial arena. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 19:22, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::On what basis do you claim that the bible is reliable? I see nothing in either [[Bible]] nor [[:Category:Bible]] which attempts to explain the bible's supposed reliability. If you're going to call the Bible a reliable source I think you should justify it. --[[User:Tigerthink|Tigerthink]] 20:42, 1 January 2009 (EST)
::: You didn't look hard enough. In [[:Category:Bible]] there is an entry for [[Biblical accuracy]], which does just what you ask for: an attempt to explain the Bible's reliability. Admittedly, it's not much more than a stub, so "attempt" is an apt term, but it is at least an attempt. Probably a few other articles in that category also provide some evidence of reliability, but I haven't checked further. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 2 January 2009 (EST)
:::Of course the Bible is reliable! How can you get more reliable than God's own word?[[User:Petertatchell23|Petertatchell23]] 10:43, 16 January 2009 (EST)
I think his point was that the Bible wasn't proven to be written by God as a primary source. As a very old collection, the bible may be subject to inaccuracy or exaggeration of "God's own word." This is just a point, I'm not illustrating my own beliefs. [[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 20:20 14 May 2009

== Suggestion ==

*Add to the start of the article:

::''This article is about the God of the Bible. For the use of the term to refer to any deity, see [[Other gods]].''

:My usual disclaimers apply. Feel free to ignore this if you want. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 19:53, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:: There's already a link to [[Other gods]]. I nearly did add a line similar to your suggestion, but then decided that it really wasn't necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:45, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==
Why is God usually referred to as a 'he'? Wouldn't God be more properly termed an 'it', being what God is? That's just a small section of Christianity that I was curious about. --[[User:GeorgeO|GeorgeO]] 16:06, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
: My opinion is that "he" is not primarily a ''masculine'' term, but a term used for a ''person'', i.e. a gender-neutral term, as is the term "man" (which is not to deny that both terms ''also'' have gender-specific uses). In Genesis, it says that God created "man" both male and female. "Man" can be used as synonymous with "mankind" or "human", and I believe that "he" and similar terms are similarly used in a gender-neutral way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

==Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence?==

Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves? If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late? If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it? If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain? And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

* Don't these contradict each other, and even themselves?
:Often times dealing with infinite elements has a tendency to appear to be contradictory, even in nature. If two objects are approaching each other with each going the speed of light, then how fast are they approaching? 1+1=2, but not in this case. The answer is the speed of light. 1+1=1

* If he's omnipresent then how could he not see Adam and Eve with the forbidden fruit until it was too late?
:Not intervening is not the same as not seeing

* If he's omnipotent, can he make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it?
:Yes. But this is more of an exercise in absurdity than anything having to do with God. It's basically taking a nonsensical statement and then putting God into it. Example: Can God make a color that is bluer than blue?

* If he's omniscient, then why didn't he create humans with a better moral guide, since he knows what neurons are going on in the brain?
:Taking the story of Adam and Eve that you reference above, our original moral compass has been skewed, but He has still given us a way to know Him personally.

* And shouldn't we add jealousy to the list of attributes, because he is a jealous god?
:Jealous has a different meaning there than we usually ascribe to it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:36, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Why would two objects going at the speed of light approach at the speed of light?

:Science states that is what occurs; it is a paradox. But when a paradox comes from science, which is limited, it is accepted. When it comes from God, who is not limited, it is fought.

If he saw it, but was just not intervening, why would he ask them how they knew they were naked?

:The same reason parents will ask their children questions that they already know the answer to. It has more to do with the children than the parents doesn't it?

If we had a good original moral compass, then why would he let us take it away,

:Free will

... and why did Eve disobey God on the advice of a snake?

:Free will

Exercise in absurdity? Yes. But doesn't that have something to do with omnipotence? Absurdity in the form of a direct contradiction is a valid argument form, a reductio ad absurdum, also known as proof by contradiction. This shows that nothing is omnipotent.

:I would disagree that the ability to create a nonsense argument means that omnipotence is impossible. By the same logic there is no such thing as infinity (a much easier argument), but infinity must exist for current secular positions on where our universe came from.

What's wrong with it? And jealousy is defined by resentment of a rival. Didn't Elijah kill the prophets of Baal in the name of God? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 6 August 2008

:Yes he did. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:11, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

It is not a paradox. You are simply not adding velocities correctly. At very high speeds, special relativity tends to be counter-intuitive. 90%c+90%c does not equal 180%c. It comes over 99%c, but not quite at the speed of light. Counter-intuitive in numbers, but it is also faulty to think that winning a game of chance with 1% to win can have the chance be raised in a linear fashion because 1/100 + 1/100 = 2/100 or 1/50, as 100 tries will not guarantee you a win, although 1/100 multiplied by 100 equals 100%.

Free will is your answer for almost half of these. But is it truly free? Science shows that serotonin, dopamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, etc. can influence behaviors such as aggression and addiction. Doesn't he know what neurons are activating in our brain?

Could you provide an example of a contradiction proving infinity wrong? Because if A leads to B, and B isn't true, how can A be true. You would disagree, but could you tell me why?

Yes, Elijah killed the prophets of Baal, that tore their hair out in an attempt to stir their god. They clearly believed in Baal, but there was no mercy nonetheless. So isn't he a jealous god, in every sense of the word? --[[User:Jhan|Jhan]] 9 October 2008

== Nav box ==

Could a sysop either unlock the article or add <nowiki>{{DivineComedy}}</nowiki> at the end? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:11, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
: Unlocked for one week (will automatically relock, I presume—I wanted to try that out). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Christianity

2010-04-02T14:33:12Z

Bradology: /* Satire */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 09:26, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== Catholicism ==

While it is true that the ''Roman'' Catholic Church might only refer to one rite of Catholicism, the schismatic Orthodox are not Catholic. Also, it is not merely the "original" Christian Church, but the only one, but the "original" semantics are tolerable. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I just deleted the descriptors after Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church, and Orthodox Church. Why I did this: The descriptor for Catholic Church used the word ''original''. There would be huge arguments over the use of that word. All of the ancient churches, including the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Non-Chalcedonians lay claim to that word. The Descriptors for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches made them seem like different branches of the same church, which of course, is not true. They are not in communion with one another and hold very different ideas about soteriology and ecclessiology.--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 05:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that Baptists, Mormons, Protestants, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses, Non Denominationals, etc will all argue that there is more than one Christian Church, and that they all don't belong to the Catholic Church and follow the Pope. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: However, this is error on part of the Baptists, Mormons, et al who are not Christians. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 15:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations. Whether or not someone "argues that there are more than one Christian Church" is a non-issue. People can argue whatever they want--that does not mean their points are grounded in truth. The study of the doctrine of the Church, Ecclesiology, is based upon what does Scripture say about who believers are, and what the Body of Christ is. All orthodox (meaning non-heretical)denominiations officially believe there is only one Christian church, one Body of Christ, because that is the Scriptural position. This Body is composed of all those who believe Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose again from the dead for them, justifying them before the Father and giving them eternal life.
"Catholic" has two meanings: with a small "c" means universal; "C" refers to the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity, ruled by the Pope and Magesterium. Christians in the Nicene creed claim to believe "one holy, catholic and apostolic church", meaning one universal body of believers, founded upon the Apostles' teachings we have in the New Testament. This is not a confession believing in Rome's positions, but in the Biblical position of there being only one body of Christ.

Quite honestly, they are widely accepted as Christian. Just because they don't fit your theology doesn't change that. --[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons are not widely accepted as Christians. For example, The Orthodox Church (2nd largest Christian church) accepts the baptisms of almost every church (e.g. baptists, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Amish, etc.) but requires Mormons to be baptized when they convert to Orthodoxy.

== Beliefs ==

The first paragraph in this section is incorrect, or incomplete. Not all Christian denominations have the "born again" stance. In some branches of Calvinism, for example, everything is predetermined. No need to be "born again". The Catholic church has also a different interpretation. I guess the orthodox too. What the article describes here is just an anabaptist view, by no means the mainstream view. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

--You are inaccurate. Calvinism does believe in the need for regeneration and being born again. Calvinism is inconsistent, however, and is a good example of what happens when we arrive at a wrong understanding of doctrine, and then try to develop a system of belief around that concept. It would be a natural consequence that if everything is predetermined, there would be no need to be born-again, as you say. Calvinism sees that would be contrary to Scripture, and tries to work around this, but is not able to do so and still arrive at correct doctrine. We should be willing to reject those teachings of our leaders which prove to contradict Holy Scripture. It is inspired by God and inerrant; we are sinful humans,and easily err.

If a denomination does not "have the born-again stance", it is not a Christian denomination, at least on that doctrine. All believers are born-again, regenerated by God at the moment of their belief in Jesus. The sole place of revelation about these issues is in Scripture, and the data must be interpreted correctly, or we arrive at false conclusions, which are un-orthodox and heretical.--[[User:PD Popejoy|PD Popejoy]] 14:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: You have a very evangelical view of the Christianity. But is not the only one. In Catholic church you indeed become a new person when you are baptized, but this can happen as an infant. No need to be "born-again" at later age. Also, Scripture is in Catholic Church only one of the sources, the Cathechism is also important. The Scripture can not be freely interpreted, but the Vatican has an important say in how to live the faith. You position is very protestant or evangelical, but it is just part of the picture. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

The previous few versions were build on [[User:PD Popejoy|PD Popejoy]] view on Christianity. These view were by no means inclusive. If bible study leads you to a certin conclusion, then it good for for the individual, but its quite a stretch to claim that others are misled, or mistaken. This entry should include all denominations. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)
:Where does a Christian denomination end and a non-Christian sect feigning Christianity (i.e., a cult) begin? Are Mormons Christians on your view? They stretch a LOT of things, but it is just a matter of degree, right? This is a slippery slope I don't think we should risk traipsing on. If Conservapedia is to live up to its name, it can't be "inclusive" of everyone who calls themselves Christian. The Bible clearly states that the only way to God and Heaven is through belief in the sacrifice of Christ. There will always be those who attempt to take passages out of context (Romans 2:14-16 is a popular victim of this) but that shouldn't get in our way of reporting plain truths. [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 18:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Mormons are Christian, if you like it or not. Catholics could also claim that you should all adhere to what the pope says and stop interpreting the scripture as you like. But it doesn't belong here either, because it divisive. The current entry clearly states that different denominations have different views. If you want to put forward the views of your particular denomination, create a new entry on it, put your stuff there, and add a link it to the list of denominations on the Christianity page. If you want to criticize Mormons, create an entry on Mormons, describe them neutrlly, and add a section on criticism on Mormon teachings. But let this page be as inclusive as possible. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 15 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)

== "the only way to God." ==

In Romans 2:14-16 we read "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" You have Paul saying that those people who have not heard the law will still be allowed into heaven (and to God) if their life is sufficiently good. One need not only go through Jesus. I will also point to a more controversial translation of Acts 16:17. [http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#yng Young's Literal translation] reads "she having followed Paul and us, was crying, saying, `These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation;'" The word [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Act&chapter=16&verse=17&strongs=3598&page= hodos] is literaly translated as 'a way' - '''a''' course of conduct, '''a''' way of thinking, feeling, deciding, '''a''' travelled way, road. To say that the Bible is the only way contradicts what was written by Paul. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Not to be cute with words and without intent to make things even murkier, perhaps it is better to say that Biblical Christianity is the only way of God to man and the way of man to God, narrow, indeed.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 01:59, 1 January 2009 (EST)

==Twisting facts==

This article is very one sided with its representation of the statistics given by the Harris poll that is sourced. Having looked through the source it is clear that only the stats that praise Christianity. For example the article states that "99% of all American Christians believe in God". but fails to mention that the source informs us that just 90% of Americans believe in God. All of the stats given are of the percentage of people that believe in God, which is very bias, as it doesnt show the full picture. [[User:Jennisuk|Jennisuk]] 08:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: This article is about Christians and their beliefs. Therefore, only the numbers from the poll on the beliefs of Christians are of interest here. The numbers for non-Christians and average Americans are still interesting, but if you think they are important, add them to the appropriate articles on "Americans" or "Non-Christians". This has nothing to with bias, but just that the article should stick to its subject ''Christianity'', and not wander off in all kinds of directions.

== Are Evangelicals the only Christians? ==

I just noticed that the artcile on Christianity turned into an evangelical sermon. The Nicean creed is the smallest common demoniator, therefore useful to include, but there is more. The artcile has become less enceeclopedic as it used to be, and omits the little fact that, for example, Catholics do not share the evangelical view on salvation and atonement. [[User:Order]] 30 March 10:35 (AEST)

==Revert==
I think a revert is needed. This article has become less informative more a call to christians to a particularly baptist position. I think it needs to be slimmed down and made less opinion based. I'm quite partial to my last edit. --[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my changes have made the article's tone more neutral and factual. I still read a distinctly protestant, southern baptist tone, however. It still rambles a bit, but after my changes it still rambles less. There should also be mention of "fringe" denominations like LDS, Jehova's witnesses, and even Unitarian Universalists.--[[User:Adon|Adon]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Anglican ==

Is Anglican Communion part of Protestant Christianity? I think they are not Protestant. Am I wrong?

Thanks for the answer.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 14:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah they be protestants. {{unsigned|Scholl}}

==History==

Um... Why doesn't the article include ANYTHING on Christian history?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Etymology==

"Jesus Christ" is not actually Jesus's name. Both "Christ" and "Christianity" come from the Greek word "Christos", meaning "Savior" --Noam Samuel
:See [[Yeshua]] [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:45, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

It may not be his name but it is his title. He is called Jesus Christ for the same reason that George Bush is called President Bush. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:31, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Of course, because Jesus was an official elected in a tighly run and controvercial American Election. No, but seriously he was called "Jesus the Christ", over time the "the" was judged useless and gotten rid of. "Christ" may have been part of his title but it wasn't a surname like smith or ali, he was jesus the saviour and that's the name he carried (well during early christianity anyway).

--[[User:Scholl|Scholl]] 07:16, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

==Murder==

Why shouldn't the Christianity page get a part devoted to how it is connected to murder? Perhaps one similar to that that is on the page about atheism would be in order. --[[User:Batista|Batista]] 23:22, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I completely agree, considering how prominently is is displayed on the Atheism page. Evidently, witch burning, the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition have no relevence to Christianity according to Conservapedia.

Certainly a section on the actions of the church would be appropriate. Murder though has a specific meaning of unlawful killing. Were the actions of the church unlawful at the time they occurred ? [[User:Markr|Markr]] 20:45, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== Origins ==

This article is missing an important fact about christianity. It is the only religion entirely based around denying that someones mum and dad ever had sex.
: Actually it isn't. Virgin birth was already known in ancient times. Take as example the Persian god Mithra. He was coincidentally also believed to be born on December 25. And there are a number of other figures that had a virgin mother, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== <s>More info and copyedits -if you have edit rights please add!</s> ''done, with a minor addition'' ==

::Could someone with edit rights add the first part of the following to the intro of the article (at top of page). Underneath is an edited version of the ''See also'' section which shows the denominations in chronological order as they are described in the introduction.

'''Christianity''' is a religion taking its name from [[Jesus Christ]]. Adherents are called Christians. It seems that at first the religion was called "The Way" and the adherents were called Nazarenes (after the city of Nazareth where Jesus lived). The name Christian arose in Antioch in the first century A. D. and its use spread. The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:

* the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1 billion baptized members)

*the [[Orthodox Church]] (approx. 300 million baptized members) which holds ancient theological roots stretching back to the beginnings of Christianity itself. The Orthodox Church finally broke from the Roman Catholic Church after the [[Pope]], during the Fourth [[The Crusades|Crusade]], had Constantinople captured, sacked and plundered, including both the city itself, and the [[Church of Holy Wisdom]] . Many valuable [[holy relics]], riches, and numerous other items were stolen by Roman Catholics.

* [[Protestant]]ism, the largest Communion being the Anglicans (approx. 77 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]] and its rejection of the [[doctrine]]s and [[malpractice]]s within the Roman Catholic Church. Those included the teaching and sale of [[indulgences]], the buying and selling of church positions and the systemic [[corruption]], devotion to [[Mary]] and the [[saints]] rather than inward devotion to [[faith]] and [[God]], and rejection of the [[authority]] of the Pope on the basis that the only true authority is the [[Bible]].

::"See also"

'''Denominations'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]] (Does not regard itself as a denomination, but claims to be the only Church established by Jesus Christ)
*[[Orthodox Church]] (Does not regard itself as a denomination, but regards itself as the only Church established by Jesus Christ)
*[[Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Church of England]] or ''Anglican Church''
**[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]] (or ''Episcopal Church'' or ''Episcopalians'') (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)
**[[Evangelicalism]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Pentecostal]]

::Thanks [[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 18:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I am very surprised to see some of the information that has been requested for inclusion -- and then put into the article. I fear we are doing a great disservice.

:''"the [[Pope]], during the Fourth [[The Crusades|Crusade]], had Constantinople captured, sacked and plundered"''

The Pope DID NOT do that! The Crusade on the Holy Land was called by the Pope at the request of the Byzantine Empire. The Crusaders took it upon themselves to sack Constantinople when they didn't have the funds to secure passage from Constantinople to the Holy Land. The Pope threatened to Excommunicate them! Also the Great Schism that caused the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church to part company occurred in 1054 A.D. -- 150 years earlier. While the actions of Catholic Crusaders caused a further deterioration, let's not emphasize that over the actual issues that caused the Schism long before the Crusade.

:''"Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]] and its rejection of the [[doctrine]]s and [[malpractice]]s within the Roman Catholic Church. Those included the teaching and sale of [[indulgences]], the buying and selling of church positions and the systemic [[corruption]], devotion to [[Mary]] and the [[saints]] rather than inward devotion to [[faith]] and [[God]], and rejection of the [[authority]] of the Pope on the basis that the only true authority is the [[Bible]]."''

Since when do we take a flagrant position of attack on another Christian group? -- Malpractice? Corruption? Catholics don't believe in inward devotion to faith and God? May I suggest the following:

:Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]]. It first broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of faith and works in the role of salvation could not be adequately reconciled as well as other practices that Luther saw in the Catholic Church at that time that he did not agree with. Other preachers and movements then followed Luther's example and also left the Catholic fold.

Please note I AM NOT CATHOLIC. I AM PROTESTANT. But I have deep respect for the many devout Catholic contributors that we have and what is written is disrespectful to their traditions and history.

Thank you

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:LT, could you copyedit the contentious sections and put up a revision here? Then we can make the alterations. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:31, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:Here is what I would recommend:

::* the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1 billion baptized members, tracing their roots back to [[Saint Peter]] who they believed established the Church and the succession of the [[Pope]]s as the spiritual authority of the Christian body of believers.)

::* the [[Orthodox Church]] (approx. 300 million baptized members) which also holds ancient theological roots stretching back to the beginnings of Christianity, but does not believe in the primacy of the Pope. Different theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] with the Catholic Church in A.D. 1054.

:Thanks for jumping on this right away Fox. You don't waste any time. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:03, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: The middle church history (my term: I referring at the moment to the time of the crusades, etc.) is not my strong point, so I won't dispute your claims of factual inaccuracies.
:: However, I don't agree with you on your comment on "attack[ing]... another Christian group". It's not an attack to simply tell the facts, unless of course you tell them selectively. I would think that the part that was removed about the Catholics was true and correct (if you can tell me that any was factually wrong, then that's a different matter) and relevant, and we shouldn't be hiding or glossing over that.
:: On a different matter, you've introduced an inconsistency, in claiming that the Orthodox church has its origins with the beginnings of Christianity, despite breaking away from Catholicism in 1054, but the Protestant churches, which broke away later, apparently can't trace their origins back to the beginning of Christianity, but only to the point at which they broke away.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::They are somewhat selective, but it is also placement and emphasis. This is a general article on Christianity. Under Luther or Lutheranism if specific details wished to be fleshed out from what Luther felt and what he saw, that would be more appropriate. Those accusations are not universally accepted as being an accurate representation of the position of the Catholic Church, at least as was previously written, and especially among Catholics. There are rebuttals. I doubt we would want this page to go down that path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:44, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::The Orthodox patriarchs existed in the major enclaves where Christianity formed from the early roots of Christianity just as the Church at Rome existed. The difference was in perspective. Remember that at that time being a Christian could cause you to lose your head, so the Christian enclaves didn't come together as a unit. It wasn't until Constantine made Christianity legal and called together prominent Christian leaders to figure out Christian theology that you had your first gathering. Notice, he called the council of Nicea to find out Christian thought - he didn't just ask the Pope. Over time the barbarians in the west became Christianized and converted to the western way of thinking, which had developed that the Pope had final authority in matters of Christian doctrine. The East believed all of the patriarchs were equal. Both groups continued to exist and continued to have their individual viewpoints until it came to a head in 1054 and they made their formal pronouncement of a split. Both the Orthodox and the Catholics trace their beginnings to the preaching of the original Disciples. The Orthodox and Catholics actually have much more in common than either group has with the Protestants. If you go to their services, you will find many similarities between them. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:44, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Okay, I'm happy with that explanation. Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:52, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== More ==

In the opening paragraph where we mention that the believers were first called Christians in Antioch, perhaps we should give the Bible verse as well (Acts 11:26). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: See [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DanH#Christianity here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Tweeking ==
I've added the reference to the first mention of Christians. I also changed the number of baptized Catholics to be in line with the article we have in Catholicism. By changing Denominations to Denominations and Branches, Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity fit in without extra commentary. The information was unclear as written since Catholicism accepts priestly rites performed by the Orthodox as do the Orthodox with Catholics and, at least in more recent Catholic history, they have referred to Protestants as their "brethren". [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: The tweaking looks good, but one I question is the removal of [[Amish]]. I'm not disputing that they are Mennonite (I wouldn't actually know), but the list is a list of other articles on various groups, and as the Amish have their own article, they should be there, I would think (although you could list them on the same line as Mennonite or as a next-level indent under Mennonite, I guess). I had previously wondered why the Episcopalians were listed separately to the Anglicans, but figured that this is why: it's actually a ''see also'' list arranged by group. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::Strictly speaking they are Anabaptists, as are the Mennonites, but they are sufficiently distinct to merit separate articles. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Who's really a Christian?==

I'm not trying to stir up a controversy here, but I realize that not every church in the list is considered to be truly "Christian" by every other church on the list. Can we just agree to let the status quo be, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:04, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not 100% on the Unification Church's doctrine, Ed, so feel free to wade in and correct. As I understand it, the UC denies the deity of Jesus Christ; teaches He was the illegitimate offspring of Zechariah and Mary; that He failed in His earthly mission; that His purpose was to marry and to produce perfect children but He was killed before He could fulfill that; that a "third Adam" must come to fulfill G-d's plan for physical salvation by marrying and producing the sinless race; that Rev. Moon is the "third Adam" (paraphrased from ''Unification Church - Christian or Cult?''). Individually, each of those doctrines would render the UC ''non''-Christian.

:As for the LDS, I think this has been thrashed out, unsuccessfully, several times at CP. See [http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html here]. Again, the doctrine renders them ''non''-Christian. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I should probably write an article on [[Unification Church doctrine]], but here's a quick summary based on the points above:
#yes, [[Jesus]]'s purpose was to marry and to produce perfect children but He was killed before He could fulfill that
#*The UC teaches that Jesus did not come to die; that he had authority to forgive sins even while he was alive
#yes, a "third Adam" must come to fulfill G-d's plan for physical salvation by marrying
#*but he and his wife alone will not produce the sinless race; the people alive on the earth need to be "grafted" into the [[heavenly lineage]]
#yes, he was the offspring of [[Zechariah]] and [[Mary]]
#*this parallels the story of [[Judah]] and [[Tamar]]; see "[[restoration of the lineage]]"
#yes, Rev. Moon is the "[[third Adam]]"
#*The first [[Adam]] was not supposed to fall; Jesus came as the [[second Adam]]
#*And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.”[a] The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. - 1 Corinthians 15:45 (New King James Version)
#*Because he was executed by the Romans before he could complete his mission, he must "come again". In UC doctrine, the [[second coming]] will be fulfilled by another man, "[[third Adam]]"
#No, UC doctrine does not deny the divinity of Jesus, although it does declare that Jesus is a human being; see [[Unification Church doctrine#The Trinity]]

None of these revisions to the ''Unification Church - Christian or Cult?'' paraphrase really changes the essential point, which is that mainstream Christianity has rejected the Unification Church due to these doctrinal differences. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Recent Changes ==

Please use the talk section to discuss recent changes. For instance why was the statement that the Orthodox Church does not accept the primacy of the Pope removed? And why was Evangelical Christianity moved from Protestant to Reformed?

There may be good answers for these changes, but discussion is needed to understand the reasoning. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:46, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Again, please use the talk pages. You have yet to discuss your credentials or sources, and you are not choosing to work with others. My understanding of the Orthodox faith is that it does not accept the Pope as first among equals -- all patriarchs are considered equals, as according to an Orthodox friend of mine. Now of course I could be mistaken, but the method to let me know is dicussion. Thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:08, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

== Passover Cedar ==

As of right now, Passover Cedar has no mention of Jesus and is written in a form that would be hard to understand what it is saying, or the tie-in, when approached from Christianity; many churches see Jesus in the Passover and talk about the connection. Perhaps an article showing this connection would be more appropriate for a See Also at this time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

O.K see your point and think you're right. I am more disposed to see the present article amplified making the connection with Jesus and Christianity with the Passover Seder, rather than making a new article with the connection. What do you think?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 07:20, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:It sounds good to me Bert. Thanks for being understanding. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Picture of God the Father==
Feel funny making this request but it just doesn't sit right to see a picture of the Father. I don't feel this way to see a picture of Jesus, whom I believe, indeed, to be the Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, but to see a picture of God the Father?, I don't know[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]]
: I've removed it, but for a different reason. First, I tend to agree with you where there is no qualification that the picture is purely artistic imagination and fictitious in that God is not a physical being anyway. However, the reason for removal is that this is not an appropriate use of a "fair use" picture. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:09, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow! that was fast. Well, for whatever reason, thanks![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 12:16, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

==Satire==
Please can an administrator upload this pic "http://i33.tinypic.com/2celpqo.jpg" and inline link it to this article? I think it would make it feel more balanced with the Atheism article this way, same style of image as on the other.

CP prefers images no bigger than 150kb --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 15:30, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Compressed down to 120 kb: http://i34.tinypic.com/2qjj6ef.jpg

I will put that image into the article shortly. [[User:Bradology|Bradology]] 10:33, 2 April 2010 (EDT)

== Terrorism ==

The article on Islam has many references to extremism and links to terrorism. Why no such section in this article? There are many examples of people committing violence in the name of Christianity, just as there are in the name Islam. Pro-Christian bias? Something to be sorted? I am suggesting this on here because I feel sure that if I even mention terrorism without consultation on this holiest and remarkably uncritical of pages then I would be shouted down instantly... {{unsigned|Anpeplow}}

:"many examples of people committing violence in the name of Christianity"??? Oh please. I haven't heard of a single suicide Christian bomber, or [[mass young murderers]]. And if you can find one or two aberrations, they hardly stack up against non-Christian examples. I know some think the truth is relative, but here we stick to the absolute truth. Godspeed and Merry Christmas.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:00, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::Maybe it would behoove you, then, Andrew, to learn that Muslim extremism is also uncommon to Muslims. In fact, the vast majority of Muslims actually would rather see world peace than rampant terrorism, just as the vast majority of Christians want world peace, not war.--[[User:JZim|सफ़ेद-बाघ]] 18:03, 25 December 2008 (EST)

:::Surely the Crusades (and the many massacres that occured during it) was one big act of violence by Christianity (as they were the invaders). At first it was a normal war between two countries, until the Byzantine Emperor asked for help and the Pope responded with a crusade. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 18:38, 25 December 2008 (EST)

I have not the slightest implulse to exonerate the Crusades, misguided as I believe it to have been, but something in me wishes to called it Christendom or something similar rather than Christianity. Conservapedia, I think, tends to see things in the same way - rather tending to reserve the term Christianity to either the sources in the Bible or the "follow through" through the ages, that has been faithful to its Founder. But Muhammad and the sources in the Koran, really did conquer through the sword as well as persuasion, and the Jihad,the Struggle, was quite physical and violent in the sources as it was in the time of Muhammad himself. There is something quite violent in the sources themselves which do not appear in the New Tewtament and in Jesus.

I live on a street in Jewish North Jerusalem, and what I say now does not detract or diminish from the the sufferings of the Arab population due to current political realities. Two houses down, Danny was blown up by a suicide bomber buying something at the kiosk, Next to him, Mordichai lies paralyzed with an inoperable bullet in the Spine having been shot riding in the territories. Across from him, is a another young man, recuperated, thank God, from a bullet in the back from a terrorist. When 9/11 occurred, I hung out the American Flag. Passerbyers looked up to our patio then hung their heads, in silent identification and appreciation. Living here let's you recognize these things. Arabs walk freely in Jewish malls and towns. Jews do not dare to walk in an Arab town or village. When the bombing began. These Arabs are not inferior human beings or somehow not as good as Israelis or any other person. It is the sources that hold them in the thrall which strikes Jews and, yes, other Arabs, with fear and apprehension. Is that woman with the veil and the large bulging black garment, besides leading the child by the side, also concealing a bomb? It has happened before, and sometimes now, and can happen again. Every Arab Muslim here, and I will not speak of elsewhere, knows that in the name of Jihad, and of Allah, Paradise awaits those who struggle in the name of Jihad and Allah, who take the infidel with him. I do not say that desperation does not play a part, but the sources support. Not so the New Testament[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 09:14, 26 December 2008 (EST).

:'They did it, so we can do it too' is not an excuse; 'turn the other cheek' etc. Christianity also expanded by the sword; the Teutonic Knights fought (as complete aggressors) in Eastern Europe too to bring Christianity to the pagans in the areas around Poland and current day Ukraine. Also, I forgot to mention this earlier, but what about the Lollards? Or the Cathars? Or, for that matter, the early Protestants? Practically every religion except Shinto and Buddhism have a history of inflicting violence upon other religions and themselves. I do not argue with the danger and utter immorality of Islamic extremeism; I just reject the notion that violence can only exist in religions other than Christianity. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:03, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Yes, it is true, violence can exist in Christianity as well as other relgions. In doing so, it goes against what it's founder lived and died for, what He was about, and what our sources teach. This is why I am so hesitant in saying uniquivocally that what Christendom has practiced is Christianity. Perhaps its quibbling about words[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 14:28, 26 December 2008 (EST)

== "Christ" ==

The Word "Christ" (a Greek translation of the Hebrew "Mashiach") a title and then a name for Jesus, means only "Annointed One". It doesn't mean "Savior". A similar Hebrew word in the ears of English speakers means "Savior" - "moshi'a". I edited the stub to reflect this[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 01:43, 29 December 2008 (EST)

== Anglican contradiction ==

The article explicitly states that the Anglican Communion is the largest Protestant denomination whilst the link to Protestantism explicitly states that the Anglicans are not Protestants. This is an unacceptable contradiction. {{unsigned|Tpleighton}}

The prolbem lies mainly with the self understanding within the Episcopal Church. I think that the official name of the Church is the Protesant Episcopal Church, at least it used to be that way, but there are parishes and dioceses which see themselves as a contination of the Catholic Church, but, of course, not the Roman Catholic Church. There are even seminaries, the most notable being Nashotah House Seminary in Wisconsin, that view themselves as Catholic or "Anglo Catholic" and view themselves as being for historical reasons part of the Protestant Episcopal Church. Yet there are very protestant parishes and dioceses as well.
For this reason, it is difficult to stick to one terminology. Probably, there needs to be some kind of note about this.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 18:52, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== Establishing a fact ==

Can we include that Christianity is the correct religion somewhere in the article? {{unsigned|Palin4thefuture}}

:I don't think that's necessary. The article is written, unlike it is on Wikipedia, in a manner which denotes everything as factual and correct, which it is. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 20:58, 11 February 2009 (EST)

== personal theology ==
I suggest that people's personal theology be posted to essay pages where they belong. This has to be an encyclopedia that looks at the many different versions of Christian beliefs. It is pretty deficient in that at the present time. It misses people like Augustine, Aquinas, and Luther, for example, not to mention the theologians of the last few centuries. It barely mentions Paul and his role. There is a lot about the life of Jesus, which belongs in its own article, and little about Christianity.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 15:10, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

=="Christ" does mean "Annointed One" but not "Savior"==
Regarding the beginning of the article -

This has come up before, not sure where. Christ is the Greek for "annointed" in Hebrew. The Hebrew sounds like "Mashiach" which most often makes it into English as "Messiah". So far all is well. But neither "Mashiach" nor "Christ" mean "Savior", though He is. It just happens that there is another Hebrew word which to "English ears" sounds similar to "Mashiach" and does mean Savior, and maybe that's where the confusion originally came from. The word is "Moshi'a".
The basic meaning of the root of this latter word is "to widen out" or "causes expanse" (The cognate in Arabic means that today). A savior is one who widens out for others . The word is used for the Judges who were not primarily judicial figures but who gave breathing room for the Israelites - they pushed away the oPRESSors ( A common word for "enemy" in the Hebrew Bible is "tsar" = narrower). Jesus was called the Savior, widening it out for all of us, pushing back the Enemy, and the results of our sins, which ''do'' have a choking effect. For this purpose He was annointed. The ''Moshi'a'' was ''mashiach'' for this purpose. The Church also is annointed for this reason - to bring out into the open space and freedom those that have been enclosed and trapped in the castle of the Evil One. That castle (really ancient city), called Hades (see [[http://www.conservapedia.com/New_Testament_understanding_through_the_Jewish_perspective]], ex. 5), has gates keeping in its captives which can not withstand the rock thrown (a la the book of Daniel) against them. That is the gates shall not "prevail" the onslaught of the Church, and the captives of this time will be freed. Just as at the beginning, Jesus descent into Hades freed the captives of the past, leading them out to space and freedom. It is good to keep the Moshi'a and the Mashiach separate in thought, though united in one Person Jesus, as each is rich and developed richly in the Old and in the New Testament.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 22:54, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

== Can be unlocked? ==

Can the article be unlocked for and edit?[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 15:24, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Done. Thanks![[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 16:21, 28 November 2009 (EST)

Christianity

2010-04-02T14:25:19Z

Bradology:

{{Christianity}}
'''Christianity''' is the world's largest religion, having 2.2 billion followers. It is a [[monotheistic]] religion that professes belief in [[Jesus]] as the Son of [[God]]. Christianity takes its name from [[Jesus Christ]] meaning "Jesus the Savior" and "Jesus the Anointed One". Followers of Jesus are called Christians, meaning "of Christ" or "belonging to Christ".<ref>[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2661&dict=CALD Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary]</ref>

== Main Christian groups ==
[[Image:Anglican Christ Church.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Anglican Christ Church in Western Australia]]
'''The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:'''

* The [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1.1 billion baptized members) traces its roots back to [[Saint Peter]] whom Catholics believed established the Church and the succession of the [[Pope]]s as the spiritual authority over the Christian body of believers.

* The [[Orthodox Church]]es (approx. 300 million baptized members) also trace their roots back to the beginnings of Christianity, but do not believe in the Primacy of the Pope. Different theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches in A.D. 1054.

* [[Protestantism]], the largest Communions are the [[Anglican Church|Anglicans]] (approx. 77 million baptized members) and the Lutheran World Federation (approx. 68 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the European [[Reformation]]. It first broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of faith and works in the role of [[Christianity#salvation|salvation]] could not be adequately reconciled with Papal prescriptions as well as other practices that Luther saw in the Catholic Church at that time that he did not agree with. Other preachers and movements then followed Luther's example and also left the Catholic fold.

== Christian Beliefs ==
Theologians, over two millennia, have debated a definitive summary of the Christian faith. While its interpretations vary drastically, probably the most commonly accepted statement of faith is the [[Nicene Creed| Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed]] below:

<blockquote>I believe in one God, [[God the Father|the Father Almighty]], Maker of [[heaven]] and [[earth]], and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light; true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the [[Holy Spirit]] and the [[Virgin Mary]], and became man. And He was crucified for us under [[Pontius Pilate]], and suffered, and was buried. And the third day He rose again, according to the [[Bible|Scriptures]]; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the [[Resurrection]] of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.</blockquote>

Christians and Christian denominations agree on many points of doctrine and disagree on others. According to an online Harris poll from 2003 99% of all American Christians believe in God, 96% in the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]], 93% in Heaven, 93% in the virgin birth, 92% in the survival of the soul after death, 82% in Hell, 50% in ghosts, 27% in astrology and 21% in reincarnation. <ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> Note that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religious dogma of most Christian denominations.

Nonetheless, the Nicea-Constantinopolitan Creed offers a general overall picture of what Christian theology looks like, and serves as a useful outline.

Other creeds may prove helpful in research. See also: the [[Apostle's Creed]], [[Athanasian Creed]].

===God===
{{main|God}}
God is a triune being. Though there is only one Divine nature there are three Divine Persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are collectively called the [[Trinity]] or the Holy Trinity. Christians are not polytheists because of the oneness of the divine nature (or essence). The doctrine of the Trinity is central to most (but not all) Christian theology.

A major theme of the Bible is love. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc.

The God of the Christians is the creator of all things, is everywhere present, exists in all times, is transcendent, all-knowing (omniscient), just, all-powerful (omnipotent).

===Jesus===
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|180px|left|]]
During the reign of [[Caeser Augustus]] the Son (e.g. the second Person of the Trinity) took flesh from a virgin woman and was incarnate as a man. He was born in the town of [[Bethlehem]] and was given the name [[Jesus]]. At the age of thirty he was baptized by his cousin, the [[John the Baptist|Prophet John]], and began to preach in the area [[Palestine]]. About three years after his baptism, he raised his friend Lazarus from the dead, prompting the Jewish power establishment to plot Jesus death. Jesus was [[crucified]]. He came back from the dead and was seen by over 500 people. He ascended to heaven. The four [[Gospels]] contain the records of some of what Jesus did and said, but he did much more than those four books relate, as the Apostle John said in his Gospel.
{{Clear}}

===Morality===
The fundamental principle in Christian moral teaching is love and forgiveness, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. Jesus summarized his teachings in two commandments from the Old Testament:

"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 22:37-39; [[Book of Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)

Constant debate has resulted as to how a person should express love for God in their moral behavior. This moral dialogue found expression in the New Testament, where the [[Apostle Paul]] addressed such controversies as [[circumcision]] ([[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 2:25-29), eating meat that was sacrificed to [[pagan]] deities (1 Corinthians 8), speculating about myths and genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-5), and observing ceremonial dates and seasons (Galatians 4:9-11).

Regardless of a person's ethical interpretations, adherents commonly point to New Testament passages John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as scriptural depictions of love. The former states that <blockquote>"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."</blockquote> The latter characterizes love, saying <blockquote>"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."</blockquote>

Jesus Christ affirmed, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)

In trying to understand the reason for the growth of Christianity in a pagan culture, it has been noted that while love of one's neighbor is not an exclusively Christian virtue, it appears that the primitive Christian church practiced it much more effectively than any other group.<ref>E.R. Dodds, 1970:136-137</ref> This is most likely due to the constant mention of hospitality and generosity to one's "neighbors" in the Bible. Jesus was especially passionate about caring for people in need:

Jesus said to him, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell what you own and give the money to the destitute, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come back and follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

In addition to sacrificially showing care for those within the community as well as to those without, (cf. Gal. 6:10) the Christians elevated the sanctity of life, opposing abortion, infanticide, child abandonment, suicide, and gladiatorial contests.<ref>Kenneth Scott Latourette, ''A history of Christianity'' p. 244</ref><ref> Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, Paul Copan, The Apologetics Study Bible, 274 </ref> While the primitive church tolerated the existing and pervasive cultural economic institution of slavery in the [[Roman Empire]], the mandate of equal pay and just treatment (Col. 4:1; Eph. 6:9) greatly ameliorated the treatment of slaves, while advising them to seek freedom if possible, (1Cor. 7:21) and requiring that the escape slave Onesimus be received back not "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved". (Philemon 1:6) The Christian ethos of love also motivated a great expansion in the building of hospitals.<ref>Albert John Ochsner, Meyer Joseph Sturm, ''The organization, construction and management of hospitals'', p. 17</ref><ref>Roderick E. McGrew, ''Encyclopaedia of Medical Care'', p. 135</ref> By 500 A.D., most large towns in in the Roman Empire had erected them.<ref>George D. Pozgar, ''Legal aspects of health care administration', p. 2</ref>

===The Atonement of Jesus on the Cross===
[[Image:Dalí The Christ of St. John of the Cross.jpg|thumb|The Christ of St. John of the Cross by [[Salvador Dalí]], 1951.]]
All Christians believe with the New Testament that the death of Jesus, along with His resurrection, is an indispensable proclamation of a crucial event for the reconciliation of lost sinners with God. There are three elements they see to understanding His death on the cross.

# Jesus having the knowledge that His path would lead to his own death, desired and willed that that take place, and persevered in that path though there was opportunity for Him to avoid it. Though there is ample recognition in the New Testament that others desired Him to die, and that the circumstances in which His path took him would bring Him to His end on earth, the mover of all these things was Himself and the will of the Father. "I have power to take my life and I have power to lay down my life. I lay down my life for the sheep."
# Jesus saw that in His death there would be a way for people to be brought back to the God from whom they were alienated and lost because of their sins. This would involve a substitution of Himself to effect that way. "For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many." How this would take place was not new to the Jews of His day from their understanding of contemporary everyday practice of substitute payment - as in redemption of the first-born (Pidyon Ha Ben), or in the understanding of what aggadic stories such as the Binding of [[Isaac]] implied (see [[Midrash]]), but it was not the prevalent view that the Messiah was to be that payment. Though while alive on earth, he had hinted at it in sayings such as "unless a seed falls and dies, it remains alone, but when it dies, it brings forth..", it was only after He had risen from the dead that He explained Scripture (the Old Testament) clearly about the necessity of His death to have taken place. The disciples would henceforth preach, and Peter among them, that the death of Jesus the Messiah and His resurrection was for-planned and for-ordained by God the Father, and foretold in the Scripture (Isaiah 53). And so, "The Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God".
# It was the belief in Scripture, that in His death a way back to God was made possible for those that were near to God—the Jews. And a way back to God for those that were far away—the Gentiles. That is why the New Testament saw in the requirements of God for Israel a fulfillment in Jesus the Messiah. He was the perfect Israel, taken out of Egypt, to redeem Israel. And that is why the New Testament saw in Jesus, a deepness to the incarnation of the Son of God, deeper than just a Jew of His time of a certain tribe. He was the "Second Adam" to redeem the sons of Adam. This encompassing perspective had further implications.

Christians of all generations have looked to the perfect Atonement, and the hope for reconciliation, accomplished by Jesus on the cross, to provide the means of understanding the solution to the vexing problems of the mind and of life itself - How can I make reconciliation with my enemies, with even the members of my own family, of race with race and people with people?; Does His death for the sins of the world include those who only partially understand, for the baby aborted, the feeble minded, and severely retarded?; For those who have never heard of Jesus, never been "enlightened", distant and remote in place and time?; Does His death for the sins of the world also include a remedy for the ills that have come as a result of those sins—certain sicknesses, ills of the mind, body and the soul? Do they "hold" for today?; Does His death make good, turn to the better, show the way, effect the way, of the illnesses that have befallen the world, not only by sin, but simply by the circumstances of life, of degeneration, of compounded dysfunction? How does the fruit of His death bring in somehow the Kingdom "among us"?

The death of the Son of God on the cross has provided the solution for sin, and it still holds its sway over the imagination and aspirations for the people of our generation.

===Salvation===
The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). This is often interpreted to mean that everyone has displeased God and is now separated from him in a kind of alienation and enmity that results from the fundamental conflict between selfish human interests and God's interests (Romans 8:5-8; James 4:4).

However, Jesus offered a solution to this Biblical dilemma in that by repentance of sins and faith in him (Jesus), their sins would be forgiven. He said that "...the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." ([[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 2:10) Jesus also said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17, and "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men" (Mark 2:28)

Jesus Christ taught that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" ([[Gospel of John|John]] 3:3). Protestant Evangelical Christianity often use the terms "saved" and "born again" interchangeably. Other Christians, notably the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church use the phrase ''born again'' as a synonym for [[baptism|baptized]]. "Jesus answered, Amen, amen, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5)

Christians are expected to continue living by Christ's teachings (John 8:31), as is appropriate for "children of Light" (Ephesians 5:8-10). Some believe that this is necessary in order to stay saved. However, this is a common misconception of the text. It is rather referring to proving that one is a child of God by their "fruit" (things that they do and how they behave). Christians in the Reformed tradition (following the teaching of the 16th century French lawyer [[John Calvin]], as well as the faith outlined in the Belgic and Heidleberg Confessions) say that salvation is irrevocable and that it cannot be lost, if it were genuinely part of one's life to begin with. Reformed Christians (often called [[Calvinists]]) often point to Romans 8:38-39 as validation of their belief: "For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39; [[NASB]]). According to Calvinists, the reason it cannot be lost by natural things is because salvation was obtained through a supernatural being, namely Jesus Christ. This does not negate Jesus' human side, only that he was both one-hundred percent God and one-hundred percent man, according to the [[Council of Chalcedon]] (A. D. 451). The Bible also makes it clear that mankind cannot earn their salvation, and that it is a free gift.

== Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
[[Image:Jesus resurrected.jpg|thumb|left|200px|"The Resurrection" by Carl Heinrich Bloch]]
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history Gary Habermas is considered the foremost [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection], ''Dialog: A Journal of Theology'', Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297.</ref><ref>"Wildcat" and Holding, J.P., [http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html Book review of "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus"], 22nd June, 2004 (Tektonics)</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic] ''Criswell Theological Review'' 4.1 (1989) 159-74.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection:
The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories], Christian Research Journal / vol. 23, no. 4, 2001.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable] (Apologetics.com)</ref>
Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]],<ref>Craig, William Lane, [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html Articles: Historical Jesus]</ref> [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]],<ref>McDowell, Josh, [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html Evidence for the Resurrection], 1992.</ref> [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]],<ref>Jamauchi, Edwin M., [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?]</ref> [[N.T. Wright]]<ref>Wright, N.T., [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity], ''Sewanee Theological Review'' 41.2, 1998.</ref> and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>Horner, Michael, [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]</ref>

===The Meaning of the Resurrection for Christians===

The Fact of the Resurrection of Christ is a key element of the preaching of the message about Jesus and an essential of Christian belief. But there are also certain effects that this belief has on the lives of believers.

1. It is because Jesus rose from the dead, that believers now can resort to a living Savior to help and deliver them from sin and from situations overwhelming for them by their own powers.

2. The New Testament sees in the resurrection of Christ a certain vindication of what apparently to the world and to all beings was a failure and an overcoming of Him by His crucifixion. He was "declared to be the Son of God" by His resurrection. This brings believers in Him to a strong confidence in the determined power of God to both vindicate in their own lives and to bring His reign upon earth.

3. The coming of Jesus back to life means to the believer that, indeed, their sins are totally forgiven. This is because believers know that His death was as a payment for sins - a "wage of death" for our sins that He received in our stead. If He remained dead, believers would know that the wage had not been fully paid. His resurrection, carries with it our knowledge that our sin with its attendant death has been totally and finally paid for.

4. It is a now living Savior that Christians know can go before them, can closely lead them through life - as He did when He was on earth. This makes following Him practical and real.

5. The New Testament reveals that it is the Risen Christ who received from the Father the Holy Spirit and He, through Himself ascended to the Father, has given the Holy Spirit to us. This gives the believer in Christ both the knowledge and the power to live a godly life, and live a life that can be an intimately and personally directed one.

6. The resurrected Christ was no mere reassembling of the molecules and particles of the Body that had been crucified. It was, indeed, a physical body, but one that was fully under the Spirit's control, guidance, and empowerment. It was a "spiritual body". Christians know that likewise, they will one day be granted the nature of a spiritual body, and full of health. They therefore are full of hope and consolations, and consider that even now in this life, there is an overcoming through Him, a restoration, and that tears, even now, are wiped away.

== Evangelism ==
In what is called the [[Great Commission]], Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Gospel (literally "good news") and make disciples.
:'''Great Commission'''
:''But the eleven disciples proceeded to [[Galilee]], to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in [[heaven]] and on [[earth]]." Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the [[#God the Father|Father]] and the [[#God the Son|Son]] and the [[#God the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit]], teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."'' --[[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 28:16-20 [[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]

[[Image:Gleyre The Departure of the Apostles.jpg|thumb|240px|The Departure of the Apostles by [[Charles Gleyre]].]]
 

==History of the name "Christian"==
The early Christian faith was sometimes called ''That Way'', (Acts 19:1,9,23; 24:22) and the church its adherents were also called ''Nazarenes'', (Acts 24:5) evidently after the city of [[Nazareth]] where Jesus lived. Probably close to A.D 50 the [[Acts of the Apostles|Book of Acts]] (Acts:11:26) records that "the disciples were called Christians first in [[Antioch]]." The title ''Christian'' is also used in Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16, and likely is referred to in James 2:7, "Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?"

==Early Church Community and Commitment: The Biblical Period==

The Bible records that that at least initially, the church was a single organic community, in which

:they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. {43} And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. {44} And all that believed were together, and had all things common; {45} And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. {46} And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."(Acts 2:42-47; 4:32)

This community was soon "scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles" due to determined persecution, which resulted in the dispersed disciples going "every where preaching the word." (Acts 8:1,4)

Other evidence indicates believers had their own houses and goods. (Acts 10:6; 16:14,15,40; 21:8; 1Cor. 11:22; 1Tim. 6:17; Philemon)

==Early Church Community and Commitment: the Post Biblical Period==

'''Justin martyr 100 A.D. - 165 A.D. From the "First Apology" (Defense)
'''

<blockquote>
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. (Chapt. LXV - administration of the sacraments)</blockquote>

<blockquote>
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist = the Thanksgiving], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone... (Chapt. LXVl - of the Eucharist)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead...(Chapt.LXVll - weekly worship of the Christians)
</blockquote>

'''Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220), Early ecclesiatical leader and writer, in his ''Apology'' (response to pagan charges) in describing the early church community (197 A.D.): '''

:We are a body knit together by one faith, one discipline and one hope. We meet together as a congregation, uniting together to offer prayer to God. We pray for the emperors and all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for peace and for the delay of the final end. We read our holy scriptures to nourish our faith, hope, steadfastness and good habits. We hear exhortations and rebukes. We take such judging very seriously – as befits those who believe they are in the sight of God – especially seriously when anyone sins so grievously we have to cut them off from our prayer, our congregation and all sacred things. Our elders preside over us, obtaining that honor not by money, but by their established character. There is no buying and selling in the things of God. Though we have a fund, but not because people can buy religion. Once a month, anyone who wants to makes a small donation – but only he who is able and willing; there is no compulsion. It is not spent on feasts, but to support and bury poor people, to provide for orphans, the elderly old persons, victims of shipwreck and those in prison for their faith.<ref>Defense by Tertullian (39), Trans. Rev. S. Thelwall. Modernized, abridged and introduced by Stephen Tomkins. Edited and prepared for the web by Dan Graves.</ref>

'''Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Pontus & Bithynia (northern Turkey) from A.D. 111-113, reporting to emperor Trajan of Christians, whom such pagan rulers found intolerable:'''

:...in the case of those who were denounced to me as Christians, I have observed the following procedure: I interrogated these as to whether they were Christians; those who confessed I interrogated a second and a third time, threatening them with punishment; those who persisted I ordered executed. For I had no doubt that, whatever the nature of their creed, stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy surely deserve to be punished. There were others possessed of the same folly; but because they were Roman citizens, I signed an order for them to be transferred to Rome.

:... Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

:They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.<ref>Pliny the Younger Letters, 10.96 </ref>

==Also See==
[[Image:Orthodox churches icon artwork.jpg|thumb|Orthodox Church's icon artwork.]]
'''Denominations or branches of Christianity'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]]
*[[Orthodox Church]]
*[[Protestantism|Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Church of England]] or ''Anglican Church''
**[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]] (or ''Episcopal Church'' or ''Episcopalians'') (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)
**[[Evangelical Christianity]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Pentecostal]]
**[[Plymouth Brethren]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Seventh-day Adventist]]

'''Disputed'''
*[[Christian Science]]

'''Other articles'''
*[[Aramaic Church]]
*[[Cathedral]]
*[[Catholicism]]
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Defense of Christianity)
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Church]]
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Evangelical Apostolic Church of North America (Syro-Chaldean)]]
*[[Gospel reading in the Church: the Turgama]]
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Messiah]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]
*[[Persecution of Christians]]
*[[Red-letter Christian]]
*[[Sign of the Cross]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Gates of Hell]]

==Further reading==
===Encyclopedias===
* Bodensieck, Julius, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church,'' (3 vol 1965), ECLS perspective
* Brauer, Jerald C. ''The Westminster Dictionary of Church History'' (1971), 880pp
* [http://newadvent.org/cathen/index.html ''The Catholic Encyyclopedia'' (1907-1913)], old but highly detailed and online
** '' New Catholic Encyclopedia'', edited by the Catholic University of America, 17 vol. 1967-1979.
*Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'' (3rd ed. 1997), 1840pp; [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary-Christian-Church/dp/0192802909/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b excerpt and text search]; online at [[OUP]]
* Elwell, Walter A., ed. ''Evangelical Dictionary of Theology‎'' (2001) 1312 pages; articles by over 200 Evangelical or Fundamentalist scholars
*Hastings, Adrian et al. eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought'' (2000) 808pp; 600 articles by 260 Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0198600240/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-4292297-2766841#reader-link excerpt and text search]; online at [[OUP]]
*''New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge'' (1911), ), major sources of older scholarly articles; mainline Protestant perspective
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01.toc.html Vol. 1: Aachen - Basilians]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.toc.html Vol. 2: Basilica - Chambers]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc03.toc.html Vol. 3: Chamier - Draendorf]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc04.toc.html Vol. 4: Draeseke - Goa]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc05.toc.html Vol. 5: Goar - Innocent]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc06.toc.html Vol. 6: Innocents - Liudger]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc07.toc.html Vol. 7: Liutprand - Moralities]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08.toc.html Vol. 8: Morality - Petersen]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc09.toc.html Vol. 9: Petri - Reuchlin]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc10.toc.html Vol. 10: Reutsch - Son]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc11.toc.html Vol. 11: Son of Man - Tremellius]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12.toc.html Vol. 12: Trench - Zwingli]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc13.toc.html Vol. 13: Index]

===Histories===
*Briggs, J. H. Y., Robert D. Linder, and David F. Wright. ''Introduction to the History of Christianity: First Century to the Present Day'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-History-Christianity-Century-Present/dp/0800638123/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823548&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
*Gonzalez, Justo L. '' A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon'' (2nd ed. 1987); [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Beginnings-Chalcedon/dp/0687171822/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823941&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1]; ''A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation'' (2nd ed. 1987) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Augustine-Reformation/dp/0687171830/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823941&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 2]; ''A History of Christian Thought: Volume 3: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Protestant-Reformation/dp/0687171849/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search vol 3]
*Horsley, Richard A. ''Christian Origins: A People's History Of Christianity, Vol. 1'' (2006), 318pp [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Origins-Peoples-History-Christianity/dp/080063411X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200886474&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''A History of Christianity'' (2 vol 1975) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Beginnings-1500-Revised/dp/0060649526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823548&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1, to 1500], by leading Baptist scholar
*Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''A history of the expansion of Christianity'' (7 vol 1939-1970), monumental history of missionary work worldwide
*MacCulloch, Diarmaid. ''The Reformation'' (2005), influential recent survey [http://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Diarmaid-MacCulloch/dp/014303538X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
*McGonigle, Thomas D., and James F. Quigley. ''A history of the Christian Tradition: From Its Jewish Orgins to the Reformation'' (1988); ''A History of the Christian Tradition, Vol. II: From the Reformation to the Present'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Tradition-Vol-Reformation/dp/0809136481/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-15 excerpt and text search vol 2]
*Pelikan, Jaroslav. ''Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine'' (5 vol 1975-91) [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Doctrine-Medieval/dp/0226653757/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search v. 3, 600 AD -1300]]; [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Reformation-1300-1700/dp/0226653773/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search vol 4, 1300-1700]; [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-History-Development-Doctrine/dp/0226653803/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 5, 1700-present] This is the standard history of Christian doctrine.
*Ward, Keith. ''Christianity: A Beginner's Guide'' (2008), 195pp

===United States===
* Ahlstrom, Sydney E. ''A religious history of the American people‎'' (1979) 1192 pages; classic history from broad perspective [http://books.google.com/books?id=5kFF6a1viGcC&dq=inauthor:ahlstrom&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Balmer, Randall. ''Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism'' (2nd ed. 2004), 655pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/encyclopedia-of-evangelicalism-by-randall-balmer.jsp ''Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism'' online edition]
* Lippy, Charles H. and Peter W. Williams, eds. ''Encyclopedia of the American religious experience: studies of traditions and movements'' (3 vol 1988) 1872 pages; standard reference work; long essays by scholars
* Noll, Mark A. '' A history of Christianity in the United States and Canada‎'' (1992), by leading Evangelical historian [http://books.google.com/books?id=VGF3wbzzy9QC&dq=intitle:christianity+inauthor:noll&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Queen, Edward L. et al, eds. Encyclopedia of American Religious History'' (3rd ed. 2 vol. 2009) 1200pp
* Reid, Daniel G. et al. eds., ''Dictionary of Christianity in America'' (199)
* Wooley, Davis C. ed. '' Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists‎'' (5 vol 1958-19820; 2565 pages

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/christians/ What Liberals Say - Category: Christians], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Christianity| ]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]