Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Christianity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleChristianity is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 18, 2004.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
December 26, 2005Featured article reviewDemoted
July 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 4, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 15, 2022Good article nomineeNot listed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of October 1, 2006.
Current status: Former featured article



The main picture should be of the Crucifixion or the Resurrection

[edit]

I think the main picture (above the infobox) should be a painting (or other artistic depiction) of either the Crucifixion or Resurrection of Christ. The death and resurrection of the Son of God is Christianity, whereas the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (current photo), while certainly the most important Christian church, is not necessarily super critical to the religion itself (unlike say the Kaaba in Islam which all Muslims are required to visit); indeed the overwhelming majority of Christians have never visited it. JDiala (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yea 178.20.142.170 (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can follow JDiala's reasoning, but if somebody can find something suitable, it would be good to have a triptych picture showing the incarnation/birth of Jesus, crucifixion and resurrection, to depict the main aspects of Christianity in a single image at the head of the page. BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would possibly agree in the abstract, but unfortunately the specifics make this a non-starter I would strongly object to, for the simple fact we would have to prioritize a specific artistic tradition or other sectional or historical dimension in selecting a representation. You could make the argument this is still the case with the architectural style of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: however, the fact that diverse Christians visit and control the site makes me worry about that less, on top of its importance for all Christians absolute location–wise. Remsense ‥ 论 05:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good observation, about the church. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:44, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox language

[edit]

Why is Latin not in the infobox’s languages parameter? Kowal2701 (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change First Sentence of Article

[edit]

The article states that Christianity is based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Little evidence exists to show that the teachings that are ascribed to Jesus are actually from a man named Jesus. The Christian Bible and the Roman church are not independent unbiased sources and so the claim of the first sentence is wrong. This should be corrected. 2601:189:4100:EC30:E8AA:ECB2:3D87:836B (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest it should say? Masterhatch (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, perhaps something along the lines of:
Christianity is a religion that formed in the Roman Empire during [time period here]. The most common forms of Christianity are based on the teachings and practices of a Roman religious group called a "church" and/or the Bible that was compiled by that church as well as the Jewish Scriptures. A core promulgation of the original religion is that a Jewish man named Jesus, is/was also God (as God's Son), he taught people, he is the Jewish Messiah, and he was crucified and was resurrected bodily from the dead by God.
Could also add notes about various Biblical interpretations and churches that have diversified from the early Roman Church.
Note also, that I say "promulgation", because no proof exists that the Church leaders generally believed what they taught about Jesus (and in fact, clues to the contrary exist, e.g. Roman common ground religion).
This is a suggestion to give some ideas. 2601:189:4100:EC30:E8AA:ECB2:3D87:836B (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR. But I have changed the first sentence (with some amendments by others) into

Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion venerating Jesus Christ as the Messiah or redeemer of mankind, exemplified in his life and teachings as described in the New Testament.

Additionally, I've changed

The four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John describe Jesus's life and teachings,

into

Christians belief that the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John describe Jesus's life and teachings

since critical Bible studies have extensively argued, for a long time, that the Gospels contain almost no reliable info on the life of Jesus, except for his baptism and crucifixion. Both are also in line with (emphasis mone)

Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, whose coming as the Messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament in Christianity) and chronicled in the New Testament.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gracious improvements :-) Additional thoughts:
Potentially presumptuous words to consider:
"...venerating Jesus Christ..." assumes Messiah, suggest along lines of: "...venerating a man named Jesus as the Jewish Messiah as well as the redeemer of mankind..."
If someone never heard the term "Jesus Christ", they would think it's a name as opposed to a title.
Also, "monotheistic" is a particular interpretation of a trinity of three persons as "monotheism". The religion teaches that this is monotheism, but objective observers may have different interpretations. Some who are accustomed to Christian teachings may not be able to see objectively that if, for example, another religion claimed that they worship three named individuals who are each God and are the same God, some people may see some polytheistic aspects to that religion. Even among some Christians, a subtle distinction is made between Jesus and the almighty God (Father), as Jesus is seen as subordinate to the Father in some ways. So, even the claim that Jesus is the same God as the Father, is not a claim in the absolute sense. Jewish people, for example, believe in a different form of monotheism whereby they believe in God as one interpersonal being who often refers to Himself in their Scriptures as singular "I". This is clearly a different form of monotheism than Christianity. I propose that the difference is important enough, that a distinction should be made.

2601:189:4100:EC30:E8AA:ECB2:3D87:836B (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ"

[edit]

I have reverted the WP:BOLD change for now. There are valid points made, but better to form a new consensus first. Saying that the four gospels describe the life and teachings is entirely accurate, just as saying that Lord of the Rings describe the life and journey of Frodo Baggins and his travel companions. It doesn’t mean either is factually correct, but says what they describe. Moreover, that Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus is what most reliable sources say. Likewise, reliable sources describe Christianity as monotheistic. There is a good deal of WP:OR in the arguments above. Jeppiz (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly fine, that you reverted, and to discuss this. To keep discussions clear, I propose to concentrate here on "based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ," and discuss "monotheistic" in another (sub)section.
As a starter, "Jesus Christ" is, of course, a statement of faith, not a statement of historical fact. But that, an sich, is a mute point to discuss, though rhetorically relevant with regard to the comment of "a good deal of WP:OR."
Let's start with that Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus is what most reliable sources say: which sources? The statement in the lead is unsoutced, and the body of the article does not (seem to) contain such a statement. What is does contain is the following (emphasis mine):
  • "The four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John describe Jesus's life and teachings, with the Old Testament as the gospels' respected background. (this is in the lead, not the body)
  • "While Christians worldwide share basic convictions, there are differences of interpretations and opinions of the Bible and sacred traditions on which Christianity is based."
  • "Among Christian beliefs, the death and resurrection of Jesus are two core events on which much of Christian doctrine and theology is based."
  • "Scripture readings are drawn from the Old and New Testaments, but especially the gospels.[note 7][194] Instruction is given based on these readings, in the form of a sermon or homily."
  • "In antiquity, two schools of exegesis developed in Alexandria and Antioch. The Alexandrian interpretation, exemplified by Origen, tended to read Scripture allegorically, while the Antiochene interpretation adhered to the literal sense, holding that other meanings (called theoria) could only be accepted if based on the literal meaning."
So, basically, the statement "based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ" is an unsourced faith-statement, which does not adequately summarize the contents of the article. What the article actually says is that Christianity is based on the death of Jesus (that is, life) and belief in resurrection of Christ (that is, belief), and the subsequent interpretations of the texts (believed to) describe these events.
Before we strand in fruitless disucssions: are we going to remedy this shortcoming (a line in the article with sufficient sources), or are we going to discuss the alternative proposal? It's quite simple, of course, to find dosens of sources which say "based on," but that misses the point: what do we, Wikipedians, judge to be really accurate? Compare what History of Christianity starts with:

Christianity originated with the ministry of Jesus, a Jewish teacher and healer who was crucified and died c. AD 30–33 in Jerusalem in the Roman province of Judea. Afterwards, his followers, a set of apocalyptic Jews, proclaimed him risen from the dead.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one more comment, but now with more of my personal opinion: In the sentence "Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ," "Abrahamic monotheistic religion" is a definiton of what Christianity is, but that alone tells us nothing of what it entails. Neither does "based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ," except that it implicitly presents beliefs as historical statements of fact; that's actually kind of a rhetorical strategy. In contrast, "venerating Jesus Christ as the Messiah or redeemer of mankind, exemplified in his life and teachings as described in the New Testament," points directly to the essence of Christianity, and to the sources for this belief, which is much more informative and accurate. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Durzill89: nice diff, but exactly as expected, and not getting the point, as explained above. Historical Jesus:

Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified.

The "life and teachings" were created after his death; the central point, the belief that he was raised from (the) death and is the Messiah, is, per definition not part of his life. And this "info" is still not part of the article, nor an adequate definition of what Christianity is. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think all the references that you gave make the same assumptions. I don't agree that one can state as fact that something is based on teachings and events related to a person, when no independent/unbiased evidence exists for much of it. Out-of-date references that simply support the same logical error, don't help. 2601:189:4100:EC30:B825:BA6:BDE1:4DD8 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the sources.

Christianity, major religion stemming from the life, teachings, and death of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ, or the Anointed One of God)

"Death" is missing from the statement in the lead sentence; EB says "Jesus of Nazareth," not "Jesus Christ': Nazareth may be kind of historical, but "Christ" is a matter of faith. After this short statement follows a long explanation about the problems of defining Christianity, and then:

Yet there is a core of ideas that all New Testament scholars and believers would agree are central to ancient Christian beliefs. One British scholar, James G. Dunn, for example, says they would all agree that “the Risen Jesus is the Ascended Lord.” That is to say, there would have been no faith tradition and no scriptures had not the early believers thought that Jesus was “Risen,” raised from the dead, and, “Ascended,” somehow above the ordinary plane of mortal and temporal experience.

That's quite close to what I proposed, and a better 'formula' than "based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ."
  • Cambridge History of Christianity:

The death of Jesus Christ by crucifixion, together with bhis resurrection from the dead, lies at the heart of Christianity.

That's in plain sight, isn't it?
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable:

The religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices. It originated among the Jewish followers of Jesus of Nazareth, who believed that he was the promised Messiah (or ‘Christ’)

Also quite obvious.
Ergo: this doesn't suffice; none of the four problems are adressed by this. Please try better, and not by simplistically trowing in more sources. Compare what our article actually does say:

Christians consider the resurrection of Jesus to be the cornerstone of their faith (see 1 Corinthians 15) and the most important event in history.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the statement; the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, which is not the case here, nor does it adequately reflect those, but is WP:CHERRYPICKING ; and it also isn't an adequate definition of what Christianity is, in contrast to the line that I moved upwards. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan:, not all Christian denominations believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Some, like the Unitarian and Mormon churches, are non-trinitarian and still considered part of the broader Christian tradition.
I have a suggestion that I believe will improve and clarify the introduction to Christianity.

Christianity is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion centered on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as narrated in the New Testament. Most Christians believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, whose coming as the Messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament in Christianity) and chronicled in the New Testament.

I hope my suggestion enhances the article. Durziil89 (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durziil89 thank you for your thoughtfull reply. Son of God sounds like a good point. We can also simply remove "Son of God" from the first line. If we choose yoyr line, I'd skip "detailed" and write "narrated," since "detailed" implies factual accuracy, whereas the Historical Jesus research has left almost nothing of this 'life' as narrated in the Gospels. But... it is still not a definition, but an explication of what is also said with "chronicled in the New Testament." So, better would be to write "narrated in the New Testament, which details the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ." And we also have the line "The four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John describe Jesus's life and teachings,[disputed (for: inaccurate) – discuss] with the Old Testament as the gospels' respected background," so that would be a doublure. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the term "narrated"; I have no objections to that. Thank you for the productive discussion. Durziil89 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan I’ve changed the term to "narrated." I hope this improves the text. Thank you.Durziil89 (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're not finished yet. The lead actually repeats the core tenets of Christianity, but "life and teachings" are barely treated in the body of the article. If we leave these two out, we get a more coherent first line which summarizes what's actually in the article. Instead of focusing on that, we better ask: "Why wluld it matter to mention 'life and teachings'?" What makes them important? As an example how to live? Yes, definitely. Other reasons? Because they 'prove' that Jesus is Christ. From a Christian point of view, yes. But from a non-Christian, agnostic, non-theistic point of view: no, because that's a matter of faith, not fact. We don't have a section which explains what Christianity is 'based on', or what the importance of his "life and teachings" is. What would we put in such a section? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it further: when we write "Christianity is based on the belief that Jesus is the Messiah who was was raised from the dead and redeemed mankind," I think we all agree, don't we? Except for "belief," because many Christians probably regard this as fact, not "belief," and have faith that they are redeemed indeed. That's where "life and teachings" come in: according to many Christians, Jesus being the Messiah etc. was already revealed by him during his lifetime, according to the Gospels. It's a matter of faith, not fact. Perfectly fine to explain that, but there's a divide of course between how a Christian might want to describe that, and how a non-Christian might want to describe that. But the lead-sentence, as it is now, already does describe that: "whose coming as the Messiah was prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (called the Old Testament in Christianity) and chronicled in the New Testament." It also says "professing that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and is the Son of God." "Professing," not "belief," which would be more 'subjective'; I actually think it's perfectly fine this way, the essence in just one sentence. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Professing that Jesus Christ as the Son of God" is central to many Christian denominations, but it is not a universally held view. Some groups, such as the Unitarian and Mormon churches, are non-trinitarian while still being part of the broader Christian tradition. Non-trinitarian perspectives have been present throughout Christian history, from early Arianism and Catharism to Unitarianism and Restorationist movements. Although these groups may be deemed "heretical" by mainstream denominations, they constitute a significant and enduring aspect of Christian tradition. As such, statements about Christian belief that only recognize the Trinitarian perspective might exclude these non-trinitarian denominations.
How could the sentence be revised to provide a more comprehensive understanding? Durziil89 (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Durziil89: remove "Son of God," rewrite the sentence, or add a short note which could be used at multiple places. The third option is the best, I think; would you have a source for such an explanation? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I have some reservations. On one hand, removing the reference to Jesus as the Son of God may not be ideal, as it is a central belief in mainstream Christianity. On the other hand, I don’t currently have a clear alternative to rephrase or rewrite the sentence. Additionally, this phrase does not account for non-trinitarian Christian denominations. I agree that adding a note might be the best solution. I can find or include reliable sources. What key points should we include in the note?. Durziil89 (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous comment, minus "As such etc.". Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to share a side note: I find this discussion quite intriguing. I hadn’t realized that defining Christianity in a single sentence could be so challenging. What I previously understood about the concept has now become a topic of debate. While reading the Encyclopedia Britannica, I came across a paragraph that caught my attention:

At its most basic, Christianity is the faith tradition that focuses on the figure of Jesus Christ. In this context, faith refers both to the believers’ act of trust and to the content of their faith. As a tradition, Christianity is more than a system of religious belief. It also has generated a culture, a set of ideas and ways of life, practices, and artifacts that have been handed down from generation to generation since Jesus first became the object of faith. Christianity is thus both a living tradition of faith and the culture that the faith leaves behind. The agent of Christianity is the church, the community of people who make up the body of believers.

Upon reflection, I've realized that the concept of religion, particularly in the United States and among evangelical circles, is often closely tied to true faith. However, in Catholic countries in Europe, where Christianity and the Church have a deep historical presence, or in Scandinavian countries with national churches that are integral to their cultural identity, you'll find that a significant portion of those who identify as Christians view Christianity more as a cultural identity than as faith in Jesus Christ—the risen Son of God. This perspective also applies to notable segments in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, where Christian identity is more closely linked to ethnicity and culture than to purely religious beliefs. Similarly, in the Middle East and North Africa, ethnoreligious Christian groups such as the Copts and Maronites often view Christianity through a cultural lens rather than strictly religious. In places like Singapore or South Korea, Christianity might be associated with social and economic status.
I was particularly struck by a sentence from scholar Eleanor V. Lewis: "Until the seventeenth century, Christianity meant a body of people, but since then it refers only to a body of beliefs" p.225–226. This highlights the evolution of how Christianity is defined, revealing the different aspects of its identity across various contexts and historical periods. Additionally, the existence of non-trinitarian Christian sects throughout Christian history and theology further complicates and enriches the understanding of what Christianity encompasses. Durziil89 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: I have a suggestion that I can provide sources for, pending your approval.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not universally accepted among Christians. Nontrinitarian Christian groups include the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Durziil89 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pefectly fine, isn't it? Nontrinitarianism provides a source: Halsey, A. (1988). British Social Trends since 1900: A Guide to the Changing Social Structure of Britain. Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 518. ISBN 978-1-349-19466-7. his so called 'non-Trinitarian' group includes the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, Apostolics, Christian Scientists, Theosophists, Church of Scientology, Unification Church (Moonies), the Worldwide Church of God and so on.. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your fruitful efforts. Durziil89 (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same to you; appreciated. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monotheism

[edit]

Monotheism. In that article, I see so-called "pluriform monotheism". Please refer to my note above about the claim that Christianity is monotheistic. Perhaps the significance of monotheistic belief must be defined, to preclude the claim that other forms of monotheism such as so-called "pluriform monotheism" are logical with respect to the significance of monotheistic belief. One might say that "Christianity claims to be a monotheist belief". However, given that Christians believe in a trinity, I don't see how one can use that as proof of monotheism, again, with respect to the significance of monotheistic belief. 2601:189:4100:EC30:B825:BA6:BDE1:4DD8 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. The term "pluriform monotheism" is not used in the context of Christianity within the article. If you have credible sources that discuss Christianity in relation to pluriform monotheism, please add them. The concept of Christian monotheism is not a controversial topic among scholars. While some followers of other religions, such as Judaism or Islam, may critique the notion of "Christian monotheism," academic sources generally classify Christianity as a monotheistic religion.
For example, you can refer to the article on Christianity in the Encyclopedia Britannica for further information:

Modern scholars have located the focus of this faith tradition in the context of monotheistic religions. Christianity addresses the historical figure of Jesus Christ against the background of, and while seeking to remain faithful to, the experience of one God. It has consistently rejected polytheism and atheism.

Durziil89 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, perhaps the significance of monotheistic belief must be defined. Otherwise, we are simply using terminology that lacks meaning.


Is Zoroastrianism a monotheistic religion?
Zoroastrianism:         "holy spirit" : "source of life",  "emanates"
Roman Christianity:  "holy spirit" : "giver of life",     "proceeds"


Also helpful:
"While Christians view their worship of a trinity as monotheistic, Judaism generally rejects this view."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shituf


With regards to the article itself, it appears to begin more reasonably.
Still, we know little about whatever an original religious movement was in Judaism before Paul. Paul himself speaks of his own "falsehood" and "all things to all people". We also know of the Roman religious common ground impetus. The people of the original religious movement in Judaism that became Christianity, were still practicing animal sacrifices. We have none of their books or writings. We only have Paul's writings, and the subsequent writings. Why were the more direct followers of Jesus practicing animal sacrifices? I think that the article cannot ignore these aspects.

2601:189:4100:EC30:F855:8D90:6137:6A3A (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. I do not understand the point you are trying to make. You make several claims that need reliable sources, such as suggesting that Christianity is a Roman religion. Your claims rely on Wikipedia references, even though Wikipedia is not a credible source.

2. The status of Zoroastrianism is different. Scholars have differing opinions on whether the religion is monotheistic, polytheistic, henotheistic, or a combination of all three. In contrast, as previously cited, there is no disagreement among scholars that Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

3. The Jewish perspective on Christianity is not relevant in the introduction or the first line of the description of Christianity. Readers of the article are not concerned with the Jewish view of monotheism in Christianity. Those interested should refer to articles on Judaism or Christianity and Judaism.

4. However, Jewish and Islamic critiques of the Trinity are addressed in the Criticisms section. Additionally, there is a rich tradition of Jewish criticism regarding the concept of the Trinity. In Islam, there are various views; classical Islam regards Christianity as a divine and monotheistic religion, and there are no legal objections to Muslims praying in churches, marrying Christian women, or eating food prepared by Christians. This contrasts with the classical Jewish perspective. In classical Islamic jurisprudence, Christianity is recognized as a monotheistic religion within the Islamic community under the category known as "People of the Book".

Best regards.Durziil89 (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Southern' Christianity

[edit]

@Remsense: do you know another way to mention 'southern' Christianity with regard to the cultural diversity? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the last paragraph of the introduction, there is a mention of the growth of Christianity in Asia and Africa. This discussion could be moved to this paragraph, as it aligns more consistently with its focus, compared to the previous paragraph, which concentrated on the forms of Eastern and Western Christianity.

Christianity is growing in Africa and Asia, the world's most populous continents, resulting in a greater diversity of Christian forms and practices.

Durziil89 (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Protestant total adherents

[edit]

Total number of adherents of Protestantism in opening section lists 1.17 billion, when the cited source [16] shows 625 million. The main Protestantism wiki uses the 625 million number. 2600:1700:3694:8210:9150:F21D:64C4:536D (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Corrected. --Nsophiay (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Christianity&oldid=1255565808"