Talk:Timeline of Christianity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Permission[edit]

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:21:58 -0700 (PDT) 
From: "David Pentrack" < pentrack at cwo.com >  
Subject: Request for permission 
To: "pieter du toit" <pieterinsaudi at yahoo.com>


I hereby give my permission for you to use this article - "Chronology of Christianity" from my website. The primary sources I used in assembling this list include a chronology by Paul Harvey, The World Almanac and Book of Facts, the Academic American Encyclopedia (on Compuserve), Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, and The English Versions of the Bible by John Berchmans Dockery O.F.M.

Thank you for the great job you are doing at Wikipedia.

David Pentrack

pieter du toit <pieterinsaudi at yahoo.com> wrote:

David Pentrack,

I really liked your "Chronology of Christianity"! I found it very informative and useful. I would love to use it in a project I'm involved with called Wikipedia, so I'm seeking your permission.

Wikipedia http://www.wikipedia.org is a free encyclopedia that is collaboratively-edited by volunteers from around the world.

I'd like to include your materials in this article http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline of Christianity; . To get a sense of the freedom of wikipedia, you could even edit this without registration right now.

We can only use your materials if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means anybody will have the right to share your materials and update them: for example, to keep up with new information. You can read this license in full at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL (note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts)

The license also expressly protects authors "from being considered responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that authors get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission and by providing a web link back to: http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/

Thank you for your time.

Kindly,

P Du Toit

I removed 450 Mark's Resurrection of Jesus added to Bible (Mark 16, 9-20 as I have yet to see evidence that the Bible was added to. --ClemMcGann 13:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I guess you haven't read this then? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16 The reason there are so many extant endings is that the original did not have the resurrection account. Extreme bias can really blind people. The Bible manuscripts are notorious for being edited and expanded by early copyists. In fact, the gospel of Matthew reproduces Mark word for word in a huge percentage and even changes the stories to remove unsightly characteristics of Jesus' power (or lack thereof). The only independent gospel we have is Mark since the other 3 are merely literary copies except for the passion accounts which contradict each other and Mark is fictional based on Homer, the Old Testament, the messiah belief and a smidgeon of inaccurate history of 1st century Palestine.

Plus, this article relies on Acts which is known to contradict the letters of Paul. It was also written probably 60 to 100 years (depending on your view) after Paul's letters and contains fictional accounts of Paul (ch 20). A historical timeline should not rely on fictional accounts. Acts is not giving us history of the early church but a glimpse at what it looked like when Acts was written.

I love the "written in Rome?" for Mark. If you aren't sure, why include that? It's total speculation but after reading this article, I suppose that is par. My name is Tim Simmons and I have no idea what my user/pass is.

Unless you actually have an original, you are more biased and have less evidence that there actually was editing and expansion. An original would be a valuable find indeed. Until you have one, nobody is in any position to declare what has been added to it. The known contradictions are also known to be poor scholarship. A scholarly timeline should not be censoring anything (including your own signature) as you propose.192.31.106.34 17:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a timeline of universal or christian history?[edit]

I noticed that no dates from the Eastern Orthodox history were present in the timeline, and added some landmark dates from the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. Some obscure popes are mentioned, but Cadaver Synod and Francis Xavier are not.

This blank is all the more appaling, as there are such weird entries as:

  • Abu Bekr, first Islamic Caliph, seat at Medina
  • Modern English language is formed
  • Earthquake in Lisbon, Portugal kills 30,000
  • 1837-1901 Victoria queen of England

What do Abu Bekr, English language, 18th-century earthquake in Lisbon, and Queen Victoria have to do with Christianity???? --Ghirlandajo 10:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

then use the edit button --ClemMcGann 15:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to be more selctive...every pope or Bible translation isn't necessarily important enough to mention, 'ya think? KHM03 20:52, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I fear you were over zealous. Challoner's Douay is to many Catholics what the KJAV is to many Protestants. Removing Lisbon, I understand, some of the others, I don't.--ClemMcGann 21:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to format a bit more for easier access & reading...if I deleted anything too important, please add it again or discuss it here. Did not realize the importance of Challoner's Douay; by all means, edit it back in! Any others? I meant no offense, only simplification. KHM03 21:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This time line is wrong and I suggest you do not take it seriously. There are missing years and Im sorry but exodus happened more around 2668 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.152.6 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reformation era[edit]

I listed the 16th -17th centuries as the Reformation era; an anonymous user changed to "modern era". It certainly isn't NPOV to say that the Reformation was the dominant event in Christianity for those centuries...just simple fact. KHM03 00:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted so much that it was easier to go back a step and just delete half of your deletions rather than re-insert the items. I have however restored 'met' to Trent. We can say that Trent 'met' the challenge. How well it was 'met' is subjective, but 'attempted' is subjective rather than objective. After Trent the reformation retreated in several areas, such as Austria and southern Germany. I will probably also restore the Calvanist NTs which you deleted. We have to be fair to all sides. Regards --ClemMcGann 09:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Met" doesn't seem quite adequate to me...but I will defer. KHM03 14:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well if you can think of another word
otherwise, my compliments on your other changes --ClemMcGann 19:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin should remain, as should the Jesuits --ClemMcGann 20:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both are featured at later, more appropriate places. People's birtdates aren't necessary, I think, with the exception of 2 or 3 GIANTS in history (Jesus; Paul; Augustine & Luther stand out as pre-eminent, I think). KHM03 20:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I just linked them --ClemMcGann 20:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did I delete Ignatius and the Jesuits? That was an error on my part; I didn't mean to do that...they are certainly worthy of mention. Sorry. KHM03 21:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Objection by User:Rekleov to "Large scale change"[edit]

What is it that you object to?

What is wrong with the current form: x, bishop of y? Please give reasons for your proposed changes. -Rekleov 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer the form "x, bishop of y" over "bishop x of y", I have no objections. Is that your only objection? My primary change was to list the bishops by their period of office rather than their date of death, I think this is more useful because it gives the time period that the bishop was active in, also it parallels the practice for the Popes who are listed by period of office dates. For example, instead of the current listing for Ignatius:

110? Ignatius of Antioch, 3rd Bishop of Antioch, martyred in Rome, advocated the bishop, rejected Sabbath, his letters were subjected to heavy Christian forgery esp. 4th cent. (Apostolic Fathers)

I would change this to:

68-107? Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, martyred in Rome, advocated the Bishop, rejected Sabbath, his letters were subjected to heavy Christian forgery especially 4th century (Apostolic Fathers)

The objection was to the "x,y" or "y,x" form. I have no problems with listing their years in office --- that's useful. Very good! -Rekleov 05:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Dome of the Rock[edit]

The "Rock" is significant to Christianity, doesn't that make the Dome of the Rock significant?

No. KHM03 22:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. In that the site of the temple has been replaced by it. Future temples appear to be prophicied in for the future, and the Dome of the Rock is in the way, possibly. Also the situation in relation to the history of the Crusades and significance of the relatinship between the three great faith of the book, in the past and possibly the future. The presence of this building has extreme importance to current Judaism, Past and Prophetic Christianity (and this thinking affects current religious behavoiour), and of course Islam. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 09:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters?[edit]

Is there a policy for including fictional characters, such as John the Baptist and Jesus, in an purportedly historical timeline? If this timeline is not historical, should that not be mentioned somewhere?--82.92.181.129 21:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the majority of scholars (both secular and religious) who have studied the New Testament and early Christian literature don't believe they were purely fictional characters (see Jesus-Myth), it's a moot point. » MonkeeSage « 01:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly see the relevance of the beliefs of those who study the Bible in this matter. If you are looking to create a historical timeline, you should look at the findings of historians.--82.92.181.129 12:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but competent historians are likely to have studied the material they are trying to date or that is relavent to the the historical existence of a person in question. Historians of ancient Chinese empires, or ancient Egyptian artifacts, or Mayan burial rites, would not be relevant to this considertion. Bart Ehrman, Robert Funk, John Crossan, L. Michael White, Elaine Pagels, James Charlesworth, David Noel Freedman, &c., all accept the historical existence of Jesus, even if they reject many of the biblical details about him (and just see him as a simple man, not a religious icon). I see no problem with having a caveat in the intro, like, "Some scholars do not believe that the person Jesus ever existed (See Jesus-Myth)"; but I think that to cast the whole article in a mythic light is to give undue weight to a small section of the current relevant scholarlship (which basically amounts to Freke, Gandy and a few others). » MonkeeSage « 08:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, I would ask how else a historian would go about examining the historical accuracy of such figures if the primary and initial texts they appear in are excluded from their examination? I agree that the theological beliefs of these historians should not be a factor one way or another in their examinations, nor in the acceptance of their findings, but their historical beliefs are indeed relevant. The point MonkeeSage is making is that the policy of Wikipedia on presenting fictional figures as historical figures is a moot one given the majority of scholarship accepts the historicity of Jesus and the apostles, though they may disagree on the miraculous claims surrounding them. Moot as the point might be, to answer your question Wikipedia has a policy of not presenting fiction as fact in general which is why this page has been allowed to exist :) -- derekgreer Thu Oct 26 20:09:39 CDT 2006
82.92.181.129 may have framed the question in a way that put him in too small of a category, but the point is valid. Even if we agree that there was a historical Jesus Christ, aren't we making an enormous leap to assume data from our single uncorroborated source is accurate enough to base a definitive time line? True, you can find a majority of historians agreeing that some Jesus character existed which Paul's work was at least sketchily based on, but even a majority of Christians wouldn't make a bet that this article's first century time line is fully accurate. The History of Islam article scrutinizes the historicity of the Koran, I hope fairly so. It reveals a serious weakness in Wikipedia to operate inconsistently here. If there other articles which use sources dated sometimes hundres of years after their writing in remote languages to develop time lines, I would expect to see a note of it. 208.59.130.243 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Forget opinion: stick to the facts. There is no contemporaneous evidence to support the existence of the NT Jesus. This character should be treated as fiction unless or until proven otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.95.220 (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
We have some sources, such as Tacitus, Josephus, Mara bar Seraoion, Suetonius, look at the Sources for the historicity of Jesus article.(Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Era of written Gospels[edit]

We need some sources here, methinks, because the only factually verifiable evidence we have (i.e., the existence of early manuscripts) starts around 120-150 (for both canonical and noncanonical works), and the prior dating is speculative; moreover, the various speculative datings are not uncontroversial. So we need to attribute rather than assert. » MonkeeSage « 01:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? For example, the Gospel of Matthew is listed at 80-85? Should the range be extended? The detail of the dating of Gospel of Matthew hopefully occurs at Gospel of Matthew, doesn't seem necessary to repeat that and its references here, just use the common dating range, and add a question mark to show that it is not specifically known.63.201.24.138 02:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another option would be to do something like 80+/-20. Keep in mind this is a timeline, an attempt should be made to present a timeline, for example there seems little point in stating the Gospel of Matthew is from the first or second centuries (which is correct). On the other hand one should avoid the impression that exact dates are known.63.201.24.138 02:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind having a range (I actually think it is a good idea), but I think that we tend to have a high-end range right now, reflecting only the more critical section of scholarship. Using the example of Matthew, more conservative scholars like Fee or Carson would place it around 60-75 (don't have any refs offhand, just going from memory). Likewise J. A. T. Robinson, J. R. Mantey, and Leon Morris argue for a c. 70 date for John. And so on. If we expand the ranges to include the terminus post quem and terminus ante quem gathered by taking all significant views into account, I don't think we need to attribute; but otherwise I think we should, so that other views can be added and attributed. » MonkeeSage « 04:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's go with the range idea. I'll make some changes to the article, feel free to modify/correct them. As you say, the concept it to cover the two reasonable terminals, details should be covered in the respective articles rather than here.209.78.18.31 22:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I added to the article:

70(+/-10)? Gospel of Mark

80(+/-20)? Gospel of Matthew

80(+/-20)? Gospel of Luke

95(+/-30)? Gospel of John

It's just a first guess, so feel free to modify if you think these dates don't accurately represent the reasonable terminals.209.78.18.31 23:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is pretty accurate. I'll look up some references in the next few days to double-check. Thanks for taking my concern into consideration. » MonkeeSage « 06:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those ranges for the canonical Gospels look pretty close based on several different conservative sources (e.g, Morris' The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT; Bock's Jesus According to Scripture). Something we are missing however, is the rest of the NT books. L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity, p. 172, gives these dates for the "undisputed" Pauline corpus: 1 Thess. - 50-51; 1 Cor. - 53-54; Phili. - 55-56; Gal. - 55/57; 2 Cor. - 55/56, 57/58; Rom. - 58-59. The rest of the books are dated as follows: p. 262: Col. - 70-80 (or 85-95); p. 268: Eph. 85-95; p. 271: 2 Thess. - 75-100; p. 274: 1 Peter - 80-95; p. 278: James - 75-125; p. 282: Rev. - 95-96; p. 316: 1 John - 95-105/120-130; p. 320: Heb. - 90-115; p. 416: 2 & 3 John - 120-130; p. 423: Jude - 90-110; p. 425: 2 Peter 120-130; p. 430: 1 & 2 Tim., Titus - 120-130; I'll have to double-check on how the more conservative scholars date these, but I believe they mainly agree with the dating White gives for the undisputed Pauline epistles, while they drop down about 20 years on the others (even up to 50 on some). » MonkeeSage « 05:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galatians is listed under: 45-49? Paul's 1st mission

1 Thess is listed under: 50-53? Paul's 2nd mission

Romans, 1-2Cor, Phil are listed under: 53-57? Paul's 3rd mission

I like the idea of listing the letters under Paul's missions. I think this is fairly standard, that these letters were written during these missions and the missions are dated correctly, but let us know if you disagree.

81-96? Revelation

I'll add: 70-100?: additional Pauline Epistles 80-95?: 1 Peter 75-125?: Epistle of James 95-130?: Epistles of John 90-115?: Epistle to the Hebrews 90-110?: Jude 120-130?: 2 Peter 120-130?: Pastoral Epistles

I moved Galatians to Paul's second mission, seems more likely it belongs there.


While I haven't examined each of the dates listed, several of the dates for the canonical books stood out right away as being from a liberal scholarship viewpoint. From most of my studies, conservative scholarship places all of the New Testament books as being written between 45 AD to 95 AD. For instance, conservative scholarship dates the writing of Jude to be 67-80 AD while liberal scholarship dates the writing in the 2nd century. James is listed as 100(+/-25)?, but every conservative source I've ever encountered considers it to be one of the very first New Testament canonical books written, dating it as early as 45 AD. Of course, it might be a little awkward to have such entries as "85(+/-40) James" within a time line. I am a firm believer in being fair and balanced, so I think both the correct consecrative scholarship ;) and the incorrect liberal scholarship views should be represented side by side, but a time line isn't probably the best format for this. It's kinda like having two witnesses describing a robber in radically different ways (tall/short, skinny/fat, black/white, male/female) and having the sketch artist combine the two into an image of someone with a good tan, medium build and height, and of ambiguous sexual facial features. The resulting image will be objected to by both witnesses and you probably will never catch the person based on the artist's sketch. As such, I recommend that this site be broken up into two sections representing a conservative time line and one representing a liberal time line. If one time line is insisted upon, it should factor in conservative dates as well (i.e. "85(+/-40) James" and "89(+/-22) Jude" for example). -- derekgreer Thu Oct 26 20:55:21 CDT 2006

LDS vandalism[edit]

An anonymous editor keeps removing the point about the founding of the LDS church (possibly because they are LDS and want to push the POV that Mormonism was the original form of Christianity and Joseph Smith Jr. just "recovered" it, rather than founded it). I don't want to break WP:3RR, but I think this is blatent vandalism so it wouldn't count — can I get some input about this matter? Should we qualify the point and say, e.g., "modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints founded by Joseph Smith. . .", or leave it as it is and restore it after it is vandalized, or what? » MonkeeSage « 00:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same vandalism mentioned below this, or someone else? If it is the same as below, I highly doubt their motives for removing that are that they are LDS... --Lethargy 09:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps putting in highly POV anti-mormon comments in the article, and changes every fix that is made to the mormon entry. User:214.3.11.2 <--- can we block this IP for vandalism?

If he continues, yes. I and others have added warnings to the talk page belonging to the IP address, let's hope he stops. --Lethargy 09:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He continued, I reported the IP for banning, and he received 24 hours off. --Lethargy 14:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's back, and doesn't seem to want to discuss the changes before adding them... --Lethargy 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very controversial subject and will likely run and run with this. Truth is "most" christian denominations do not consider LDS Christian. Certainly vast majority of protestant take this view. We need to carefully word this statement to be a NPOV as possible, whilst being as accurate as possible. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought previously that the person was LDS, since they would not explain the reason for their edits until later, when they started adding to the point rather than deleting it. Personally, I'm a staunch fundimentalist Christian, and I do not consider Mormons to be Christians, but if we're going to start qualifying and debating every group mentioned on this page, as most mainline Christians don't accept Gnosticism, existentialism, neo-orthodoxy and so forth as being (fully) valid representatives of Christian teaching and the Bible. I think it is best to just mention groups that claim to be Christian, or are regarded as being influenced by Christianity, and let the issues be worked out on the linked articles about them. » MonkeeSage « 23:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated entries from IP 69.221.217.65 also committing vandalism, suggest it be blocked to avoid the continual need to revert.

Same with 65.81.154.37 also a vandal

TfD nomination of Template:Bibleref[edit]

Template:Bibleref has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Jon513 19:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

black cross[edit]

Why is the cross black in all the Christian articles? Dot Bitch

Pre-Jesus?[edit]

Call me crazy but isn't Christianity an Extension of Judaism and shouldn't some mentions of important moments of Judaism go into this as well?

See History of ancient Israel and Judah
That is an excellent question. History of ancient Israel and Judah does not cut it. A proper scholarly article of this issue would also reference BC faiths in the Christ (Messiah) that was to come. For example, Genesis 3:15 is often cited as the earliest Biblical mention of the Messianic prophecy, as given to Adam and Eve as they were expelled from the Garden of Eden. These earliest reference would predate the existence of ancient Israel.
As for Israel itself, there is debate as to whether BC Judaism had sects that held this. The article could elaborate on common references to the "pre-incarnate" Christ such as the mysterious figure in Daniel's oven scene.
Although some people think that these theologies and histories are bogus, it would be academically best to actually present them lest these same opponents be left in the dark as to what they are arguing. This is often the case precisely because this information is commonly intentionally ignored or censored.
The term BC would also befit the article much better than BCE as this is precisely what it discusses. When the article discusses those with a faith in a Christ that is to come, those dates would be "Before Christ."
The articles should be updated also with proper source materials for the subject.192.31.106.34 17:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line about Joseph and Hyrum Smith[edit]

was reverted with the comment: "The murder of 2 relatively insignificant figures is not notable on this list" I disagree, however, that this is an insignificant event. In essence this is like saying the Pope has been assassinated. Certainly it is more notable than other things on this list such as:

Or

To name a few. Just my 2 cents

Deaths of other Christian notables have not been mentioned have they? But I agree with your two other examples. Will remove. rossnixon 09:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Deaths of other Christian notables have not been mentioned have they?" Several have:
Good someone checked :-) Ok, so now we have to decide if the deaths were relevant in altering the course or nature of Christianity. Or is being "historically interesting" a good reason? Personally I would leave out all deaths unless they led to a major split in a denomination or caused some other major change. rossnixon 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Personally I would leave out all deaths unless they led to a major split in a denomination or caused some other major change." See: Succession crisis (Mormonism) --Lethargy 19:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me "historically significant" is a good enough reason. Would you exclude the death of Jesus? James? Peter? Paul? Ignatius? ... The dealings of Pope Vigilius are certainly significant, along with his involvement in the death of Pope Silverius. Mother Teresa is significant, seems like she should be there somewhere, not necessarily her death. Likewise for Raymond Brown. 64.169.3.135 04:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown dates VS times it occured[edit]

There needs to be some distinction when years are given as to whether 46-49 means that the event happened sometime between 46 and 49 AD, or whether the event happened from 46 to 49. For example,

48-100 Herod Agrippa II appointed King of the Jews by Claudius, seventh and last of the Herodians

Does this mean he was appointed King sometime between 48 and 100, or he was appointed in 48, and remained king until 100? (The later is probably unreasonable, but it is still not clear which is what was intended) Rob 03:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He ruled from 48 to 100, he was born in 28. Approximate dates should be indicated with a ? or ~ or with a range specified like +/-10. 75.15.202.2 05:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Church??![edit]

I'm sorry, but over on the side of the page, there is a list of related links. One of them is called "Christian Church" and goes to a link on the Catholic Church. Either the link name needs to be changed or the destination of the link does. I find it offensive to claim that the Catholic Church is the Christian Church. I'm not saying Catholics dont claim to be christians, but I am a protestant but I am not catholic. For those who don't understand Christianity, the link to Catholicism as the Christian Church will confuse them, and it could offend Eastern Orthodox churches aswell seeing as they are not being counted under the "Christian Church". Hodijah 15:02, 4 October 2006

It's part of Template:Christianity. That would be the spot to protest. 75.15.202.2 05:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK, I agree with you to a certain degree. However, given that most of the Christians worldwide are Catholic (not to mention that it is the single largest religion on earth); it would seem fitting that Christianity would be defined by the faith followed by the majority of Christians - which happens to be Catholicism. 75.59.252.18 20:50, 18 October 2007

Anglicans split[edit]

While there are definite indications that some sort of changes are in process in the Anglican Communion and eventually the Jerusalem Declaration may be seen as the defining moment, I think we are too close to the events to declare definitively what will happen. Dabbler (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incense starts in 5th century?[edit]

Incense starts in 5th century? That may be when there is first written record of it, but that doesn't mean that's when it's introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.179.164 (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

This timeline virtually excludes most events of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. I recommend major improvemements and additions--Thomaq (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century - Suggested Removals[edit]

I would suggest removing the reference to Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code as not of great note in the general history of Christianity. If you can come up with reasons for it remaining I would like to hear them. --81.101.46.102 (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Novels are not historically important. rossnixon 01:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (not rossnixon) would suggest removing the Passion of the Christ as being important. It's about as important as JC Superstar, so why isn't that on there? I would like to hear defense of this, too.

These can both go - hardly two of the key events of last 2,000 years. I'll be bold. -- Secisek (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Documents[edit]

May be helpful, and would clear up some clutter, if a separate "Timeline of Christian Documents" was created. Much of the early Timeline of Christianity (Apostolic Age, Ante-Nicene Period) references the formation and creation of the Bibilical Canon and other documents. The Timeline of Christianity should record major shifts, changes, and developments in Christian thought and practice, and documents, while relevant, do not necessarily reflect these changes without further clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChancellorBen (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THomas in India in 1. cent.[edit]

This is not fact, not proved, just is a legend. As well Linus in Rome as 2nd pope. We don't know anything sure about Thomas and Linus's life because there are no authentic documents left. --Milei.vencel (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_Christianity&oldid=1209259071"